

J 1 



AN 


i 

f l.Af 


fei 


FOR THE 


CHURCH, 

WITH AN INQUIRY INTO THE 


CONSTITUTION AND MINISTRY OF THE CONGREGATIONAL 

SOCIETY : 

BEING A REPLY TO 

A RETROSPECT ON THE MINISTRY AND CHURCH OF 
SAYBROOK. 


BY BEY. JOHN MAR§HALL OUION, 

RECTOR OF GRACE CHURCH, SAYBROOK. 







s 


•* Relieve not every spirit ; but try the spirits whether they are of God.” 

1 John, iv. i. 







MIDDLETOWN : 
FR1NTBB BIT W, B e STARR 

1834. 





/IIS' 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 


With deep regret, has my attention been directed to the perusal 
of a discourse, recently delivered in this village and since published, 
containing a most violent and unchristian assault upon that religious 
denomination among whom I minister, and especially upon the 
Church in this place : an attack at once unexpected and uncalled 
for. My sincere regret is excited, not so much by the simple circum- 
stance that an assault has been made, as by the spirit and manner in 
which it has been thought proper to conduct it. I presume not to 
question any man’s right to assert and maintain his principles where- 
ever and whenever occasion offers : nor is it for me to judge his mo- 
tives in so doing. If he can justify them to his conscience and his 
God, it is well. Nay, so far from lamenting that an attempt should 
be made to sustain what is conscientiously believed to be truth, and 
opposing what upon mature reflection and diligent examination ap- 
pears to be error, so far from dis-esteeming him who undertakes it, 
it is with me a subject of satisfaction, to perceive that the adherents to 
any Christian system entertain more than a professed attachment to 
their distinctive principles ; that they are not willing to perpetuate 
these as so many grounds of division among Christians which, after 
all, they do not think worth contending for ; but considering them as 
of sufficient importance to justify a “schism in the body” of Christ, 
and to continue the disunion of those who bear his name ; they con- 
sider them sufficiently important too, to be proclaimed and maintained, 
and I honor the man who evinces the moral courage to breast the 
outcries of “ bigotry” and “ illiberally,” with which many are ready 
to meet him, and who does not shrink from the duty, the imperious 
duty of assailing error and asserting truth, whenever its interests re- 
quire it. Yet of the gentleman and the Christian, it is not unreason- 
able to expect, we have a right to require, that even error be assailed, 
and that truth be defended, in the manner of a gentleman and in the 
spirit of a Christian. I regret, sincerely and deeply regret, the man- 
ner and the spirit which characterized the undertaking referred to. 


4 


That the attack, and especially such an attack, was unprovoked and 
uncalled for, and therefore not to be expected, the discourse which 
contains it, will itself evince. Former animosities too, appeared to 
be subsiding. Enlightened reflection and Christian feeling appeared 
to be triumphing over the infirmities and prejudices, alas, too common 
to our nature. The “many trying sensations” which had been caused 
our assailant by the result of the defection “ of some individuals of 
very honest zeal,” and “ some of our opulent citizens,” had been 
much mitigated by a “fulness of the consolations of faith,” and an 
enjoyment of “ the presence of God,” never before experienced by 
him. For myself, T cherished the hope, gratifying to my soul, that 
though differing in principle, we as laborers under the same divine 
Master, redeemed by the same blood, sanctified by the same Spirit, 
heirs of the same salvation, might walk together in Christian peace 
and charity ; that our respective flocks would be characterized by 
that mutual harmony and love, which above all profession and zeal, is 
the essential feature in the Christian character. Alas, how sadly 
have these fond anticipations been blighted — ungenerously, unneces- 
sarily blighted. “Never, (says our assailant,) have I enjoyed so much 
and so constantly the presence of God and the fullness of the conso- 
lations of faith, as in the year which now closes my half century 
service.” “ There seems (says he), but little diminution of strength 
in sustaining the Congregational form of worship,” even “ with all 
this schism” of “ some of our opulent citizens,” and “ some individ- 
uals of very honest zeal,” which “ has caused me many trying sen- 
sations.” “ The union and firmness of my Church,” “ their unsha- 
ken and unwavering stability in the faith, the affectionate attachment 
of the people to my ministry, with the distinguished constancy and 
steadfastness of our dear youth in Church and Society, these consid- 
erations have greatly strengthened me.” Again, “ our house is usu- 
ally well filled ! and not unfrequently to overflowing ! ! None , so 
far as I can learn, utter the least complaint , nor feel any additional 
burden of expense. It is believed there never was more harmony , 
union , and cheerful co-operation.” Now all these circumstances, be it 
remembered, have occurred since the establishment of the Episcopal 
Church in this place, and are to be combined as a part of the result 
of the “schism.” Up to the very period of that deplorable event, “we 
had been,” says the author of the Retrospect, “ an unusually united 
people in all our ecclesiastical concerns,” “a united flock,” and “rap- 
idly growing Church” — and “ there never was,” he remarks, “more 
harmony, union and cheerful co-operation in all ecclesiastical con- 


5 


cerns than at the time” subsequent to the same event. “ Never has 
he enjoyed so much and so constantly, the presence of God and the 
fullness of the consolations of faith, as in the year which closed his 
half century service,” a year coincident almost with the first year’s res- 
idence of an Episcopal Rector in the parish. Verily these “ honest 
individuals” of “the Methodist class,” these “opulent” friends of the 
Episcopal Church appear to have been thus far a very harmless por- 
tion of the community, and hardly deserving the maledictions of their 
“ highly favored” assailant. While they continued to associate with 
their Congregational brethren , they were together an unusually united 
people ; and when in the exercise of their unquestionable rights and 
in obedience to the dictates of their consciences, they presumed to 
renounce what they deemed error, and to conform as they supposed 
to Gospel principles, these “honest individuals,” these “opulent citi- 
zens” do not appear to have disturbed the peace, or at all to have pre- 
judiced the interests of “ the ancient Church.” The (l schism, ,} the 
terrible “ schism” has occurred, but the same “ almost unparalleled 
union,” and “ harmony and cheerful co-operation” continue uninter- 
rupted. “Some of our opulent citizens” have forsaken the Church 
of the Puritan Fathers, but in sustaining its form of worship, not “the 
least complaint is uttered, nor any burden of expense felt,” by those 
who remain. Nay, a blessing has accompanied “this schism.” “Al- 
though we have now two houses of worship within our local boun- 
daries,” still it is asserted, the Congregational “ house is usually well 
filled and not unfrequently to overflowing .” With “ a house well 
filled and overflowing,” with “an unusually united people,” “feeling 
no additional burden of expense,” was it kind, was it generous, was 
it Christianlike, was it manlike in an individual so “ strengthened,” to 
turn and revile a few harmless schismatics, whose chief crime it was, 
that the “honest” class adopted “Wesleyan sentiments,” and the 
“opulent” portion, have gone over to a “Prelatical Church.” When 
he found, that the anticipated terrors of the frightful event were not 
realized, could he find no other method of giving vent to the grateful 
emotions of his soul, than by denouncing those who had neither in- 
jured him nor his cause ? Was not the assault uncalled for, one not 
to be expected ? O yes it was called for, it should have been ex- 
pected : it is generous and manly and Christian, as will be seen in 
the sequel. 

The easy task of disproving the statements, refuting the argu- 
ments, and repelling the unjust aspersions of the discourse under 
consideration, is undertaken, not without reluctance. Reverence for 


the age — veneration for the religious character of its author, would 
deter me from placing myself in an attitude of even apparent hostility 
towards him. Regard to the feelings of his respectable and respect- 
ed parishioners, would constrain me to utter nothing, which might be 
construed into an uncharitable reflection upon them, even by the 
most censorious. But a sense of duty to the people of my charge 
and to the Church of my Redeemer, impels me to the course which 
is here adopted. The interests of that Church demand a prompt re- 
ply, a vindication of her character from the reproaches of her un- 
provoked assailant, a refutation of the assertions and of the attempts 
at argument, by which he would seek to harm her — while it is our in- 
estimable privilege, that we possess a certain standard of truth to 
which we can appeal, it is no less our duty, than our privilege to have 
recourse to it. -An inspired Apostle directs, enjoins ; commands us 
“ believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of 
God.”* And especially is it the solemn and imperious duty of every 
person, who bears the office of a Christian Minister, a watchman over 
the house of Israel to “ be ready with all faithful diligence, to banish 
and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doc- 
trines contrary to God’s word”! — £ - to contend earnestly for the faith 
once delivered to the saints. Were I to pass over the attack 
which has been made upon the Church and its friends, I should deem 
myself faithless to the trust committed to my charge, and unworthy 
of the confidence of my flock. Trusting to their firm and united sup- 
port, but especially to his whose protection is pledged to his Church, 
I cannot hesitate or shrink from the solemn obligation. Nor am I 
aware that this discharge of duty, necessarily involves any sacrifice 
of Christian charity or courtesy towards those who differ from us, 
or on their part, towards ourselves. At all events, we are not re- 
sponsible for the results. We have neither sought nor provoked 
controversy. We act merely on the defensive. A most unchristian, 
uncharitable assault has been made upon our community, as malig- 
nant as it is feeble, and there remains no alternative, but abject sub- 
mission or unreserved reply : tacit assent to the false charges al- 
leged, or explicit denial and full refutation. We are challenged to 
the contest — and in the name of the Lord of Hosts, fearlessly is it 
undertaken. If offence must needs come, unto him belongs the wo 
through whom the offence cometh. 

Nor are the regrets which the recent attack has occasioned, un- 

* 1 John, iv. 1. f Ordination service. | Jude 3. 


6 


qualified by the reflection that good will eventually result from it. 
He who stilleth the noise of the waves and the madness of the peo- 
ple, can make the wrath of inan to praise him. Never since the 
time that “the blood of the Martyrs proved the seed of the Church,” 
have the hostility and persecution of her opponents failed to promote 
her best interests : and I hail the recent manifestation of implaca- 
ble enmity, as the commencement of a new era in the history of 
the apostolic Church, and of primitive truth and order in this 
place. Men, reflecting, candid men will be led to consider, as the 
“ noble Bereans” perchance, to sacrifice prejudice, and with minds 
open to conviction, to “ search the scriptures, whether these things 
are so” : to inquire not what is “ the old Puritan faith and worship,” 
but what is the faith and worship of the gospel ; not what is “ the 
Church which the Puritan Fathers have established,” but what the 
Church which Jesus Christ has built, upon the foundation of Apos- 
tles and Prophets, himself the chief corner stone.” Not to be giving 
their minds to the inventions and “ experiments” of men, although 
“ tested for centuries nearly ” : but to “ stand in the ways and see 
and ask for the old, paths , where is the good way and to walk therein, 
and thus find rest for their souls.” There are some, it is lamentably 
true, so entrenched in prejudice and conceit, as to be proof against 
all conviction : whom neither Moses, nor the Prophets, nor the Gos- 
pel, nor one raised from the dead could persuade — who will cling to 
favorite errors, and “ resist the truth,” even at the hazard of their 
soul’s salvation — such, it is to be expected, will care for none of these 
things. But there are those of honest minds, whose leading desire is 
to be guided right ; who can surrender opinions and interest also for 
the truth’s sake, — who, though they may involuntarily have been led 
into an erroneous course, have only to understand the correct one, to 
be induced to adopt it : such, in reliance upon Divine Grace, have but 
to make the sincere, the prayerful endeavor to learn and do their duty, 
and theirs is the encouraging assurance “ if any man will do the will 
of my Father, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God.’’ 
But to such, the caution is addressed “ believe not every spirit, but try 
the spirits whether they are of God.” Judging then of the spirit of 
the discourse under consideration, by the standard of God’s word, with 
what character is it invested. Is it to be believed ? 

There we find the old slander revived in the false representation of 
the “ Prelatical Churches,” by which terms we are at no loss to un- 
derstand what is meant, of their not “requiring experimental religion 
and a change of heart to be the terms of Communion.” Then the 


8 


contemplated establishment of an Episcopal Church is characterized 
as “ opposition” — “ a hostile and threatening appearance” — “ a rea- 
son for apprehension of schism” — “ a sundering of happy union” — 
a cloud threatening “ the religious harmony and united order” which 
prevailed — “hostility to the divine influence” — “opposition to the 
finger of God and the work of grace.” The successful accomplish* 
ment of the undertaking is denounced as a work of Satan, involving 
an opposition to “spiritual influence and Christian harmony,” and to- 
gether with the introduction of the sentiments of Wesley, the fervent 
labors and devoted zeal of the Methodists attributed to the invidious 
adversary. Do I misrepresent the language of the discourse, or mis- 
construe its application and meaning ? No — I appeal to the thing 
itself, and if it do not more than sustain these assertions, let me be 
deemed the reckless calumniator.* 

* Not to notice the scoffs and sneers with which the “ half-century Sermon ”/ 
is plentifully interlarded, the reader is referred to the closing remarks in the section 
which terminates in the middle of page 21 — to the third and fourth sections on 
page 12 — to the last three sections on page 13, and to the top of page 14. In the 
first case, he will be at no loss to understand what is meant by the “ Prelatical 
Churches.” The terms, though in themselves quite unobjectionable, are the fa- 
vorite expression of those who speak with derision of the Episcopal Church ; nor 
is it difficult to comprehend the force of the inquiry in regard to the “ prelatical 
Churches.” On page 12, the “ opposition ,” “ the hostile and threatening ap- 
pearances,” the “ reason for apprehension that a schism was forming ,” are all 
explained by the circumstance related in immediate connection with these ex- 
pressions, that “ subscription papers were issued to form an Episcopal Church ; 
and thus sunder our happy union.” As the design was not immediately carried 
into effect, this fact is thus represented, “ the cloud soon disappeared, and all things 
continued to proceed in apparently the same religious harmony and united order as 
before,” “ The effusions of divine influence bore down all hostility ; and a con- 
viction that here was “ the finger of God,” closed the lips of opposition.” “ The 
work of grace uniformly advanced,” &c. The passage requires no comment. On 
page 13, after noticing “ the overflowings of spiritual influence,” “ the state of 
Christian harmony and sweet union in mind,” which continued up to the very mo- 
ment of the terrible catastrophy, the writer observes, in his classic style, “ Soon 
was I called to bitterly remember and realize what a fellow-laborer pleasantly! 
observed to me : “ what, sir, do you think the adversary will do to you, when in- 
vidiously seeing you thus highly favored of the Lord, with a united flock and rapidly 
growing Church ? Surely he will make an effort to raise a storm, and scatter the 
flock.” And now reader, in what manner do you suppose this pleasant observa- 
tion was realized — in what did the effort of the adversary consist ? Why, in the 
introduction of “ Wesleyan sentiments,” “drawing over to the Methodist class, 
some individuals of very honest zeal,” and the organization of an Episcopal 
Church. These were the circumstances in which the pleasant observation was 
realized — these the circumstances which “blotted the page by disunion, and the 
rendings of deforming schism,” yes, even so, blotted a page with — rents. If we 


9 


in the most unqualified terms, in language to which no stretch of 
charity can give a more favorable construction, all those who have 
presumed to become “ discontented with the ecclesiastical orderings 
of the day,” and to withdraw from what they conscientiously deem- 
ed an unscriptural Church, are denounced, and especially are the 
friends of the Episcopal Church stigmatized as turbulent disorgan- 
izes, abettors of “ hostility to the divine influence,” of “ opposition 
to the finger of God,” the detestable, impious (ools of “ the adver- 
sary.” Gracious Heaven! and has it then come to this, that in a 
land of boasted freedom of conscience, a number of persons may 
not assemble to worship their God and Redeemer, according to their 
'own views of propriety, and the dictates of their own consciences, 
and the rule of the Gospel, without being stigmatized and denounced 
■as foes of God, fellow-workers with Satan, and instruments of the 
adversary ; and that too by one who holds the office of a Teacher in 
a Society, which “ has been a great patron of free researches into 
truth” — “ the unshaken friends of republican rights and privileges 
— in a land known as the seal of freedom” — by one claiming affinity 
with those who came here, and “ established themselves for the free 
enjoyment of civil and religious privileges” — with those who were 
willing to endure so much, if, by their labors and sufferings, they 
could secure for themselves and their descendants, the quiet possess- 
ion of republican privileges, and civil and religious liberty ! O ! is 
it not too much to hear a Church, which numbers among its mem- 
bers and firm supporters, a glorious company of Martyrs and Con- 
fessors, of men eminent for piety and every Christian virtue, and 
active in the benevolent enterprises of every age : a Cranmer and 
a Ridley, a Beveridge and a Horne, a Heber and a Hobart, a VVilber- 
force and a Nelson, and an unrivalled host of luminaries — is it not 
too much, to hear such a Church vilified and denounced, as the in- 
strument of Satan, by any mere mortal, by one who is under the 
greatest obligations to her piety and zeal for the truth — who, when 
convenience and interest suited too, could extol her as a praise in 

had not been assured, upon infallible testimony, of “ the overflowings of spiritual 
influence,” we might have suspected that very little was experienced by one who 
could contemplate and confidently predict such a melancholy event, with anything 
like pleasantry — The Adversary introducing Wesleyan sentiments, and organ- 
izing an Episcopal Church. The pleasantry of the “ fellow-laborer,” was perhaps 
a little excusable, especially if he foresaw too, the manner in which the effort was 
to be made. The Devil turned Methodist preacher, and building Episcopal church- 
es — a queer way of raising the wind,” almost as queer as to “ blot a page with 
rents.” 


2 


10 


the earth ! Will public opinion indeed tolerate such a flagrant vio- 
lation of common decency, to say nothing of Christian charity ?* 

Let us “ try the spirit,” which dictated and breathes in this pro- 
duction, and who will say it is “ the Spirit of Truth,” and of the 
Gospel. Where do we find that spirit of charity, which “hopeth 
all things,” “ thinketh no evil,” “ vaunteth not itself,” “ is not puffed 
up” — that charity which is above all faith and hope ? Where is that 
spirit of love for the souls of men which, instead of regarding even 
the presumed errors of those who differ from us, with bitter feelings, 
mourns and grieves over them ? Compared with the spirit of a St. 
Paul, or a St. John, how little does it resemble the holy flame which 
warmed their breasts ? It savors, also, but little of the boasted 
“ benevolent spirit,” which we are assured has been so much mani- 
fested. It partakes rather of that malignant spirit, which instigated 
the Jews of old, when argument and Scripture failed them, to im- 
pute the divine works of our Lord to the agency of Beelzebub. It 
manifests the spirit of the Adversary. It is not to be trusted — it is 
not to be believed. 

How very different from these denunciations, is the language of 
Dr. Dwight: “I cannot but remember,” says he, “ and remember 
with emotions of gratitude and respect, the very great and beneficial 
exertions made by the English [Episcopal] Church, in the cause of 
Christianity — and made, in many instances, by the dignitaries of 
that Church. Butler, Berkley, Jewell, Beveridge, Bedell, Wilson, 
were Bishops ; Cranmer, Leighton, and Usher, were Archbishops ; 
Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley were Martyrs. In that Church, also, 
real religion has, at times, flourished to a great and very desirable 
extent. Like other Churches, it has had its bright and dark days : 
but it has undoubtedly, sent multitudes of its members to Heaven ; 

* It is gratifying to learn, that so far from tolerating such an outrage, public opin- 
ion has most decidedly condemned it. Of this fact, the most satisfactory evidences 
have been furnished, during the preparation of this reply. The very friends and 
parishioners of the author of the Retrospect, have pronounced a most unqualified 
condemnation upon the spirit of the production. None, with but a verydriflinf 
exception none, have attempted to justify the objectionable expressions. They 
who endeavor to apologize for its author, do it in such terms as show the opinion 
they have of his qualifications for the office he bears, of guiding immortal souls in 
the way of life, and of instructing those under his charge, in the things that be- 
long to their peace, and the honor of God. Among other attempts at extenuation, 
it is asserted, that “ he did not mean what his language conveys.” If this apology 
is correct, an opportunity is now furnished to retract the offensive expressions.— 
Were the others believed to be true, they would have forbidden this reply. 


11 


and, at the present time, is fast rising in the gradations of piety.” 
“ Nor can I willingly adopt the severe aspersions sometimes thrown 
upon [Episcopacy] by individual Presbyterians.” (Dwight’s The- 
ology, Sermon cli.) 

To bring these preliminary remarks to a conclusion, I would 
merely add, that to those who are acquainted with the true st ite of 
things, it must be really amusing, to hear the Congregational Church- 
es eulogized and extolled “ as the great patrons of free researches 
into truth ” — and especially so, as the encomium is applied to the So- 
ciety in this village, when, under the wide heavens, in no place, 
have more arduous exertions been made — more glaring misrepre- 
sentations, and more gross calumnies circulated, to deter men from 
investigating and receiving the truth as it is in Jesus, than in this 
very quarter. But far be it from me, by seeming reproach, to em- 
bitter the minds of any. Solemnly do I disavow all uncharitable 
feelings towards those who differ from us ; and did I not believe, that 
more solid peace and mutual good will, with the glory of God, 
would be ultimately promoted, I would refrain from uttering another 
sentence upon the present subject. With those from whom we dif- 
fer, I hope to meet in the Church triumphant above. My heart’s 
desire and prayer is, that we might walk together in love and har- 
mony in the Church militant on earth. 




OF THE 

CONGREGATIONAL C fil U K C IS . 


The spirit of the attack which calls forth these remarks, having 
been noticed, some idea may be formed of the proportion of truth 
and of error, which might reasonably be expected to accompany it. 
Let us then, turn our consideration to the arguments by which alone 
it can be justified. For it is freely admitted, that if the denomina- 
tion of Christians therein represented, as being the Church which 
“ Jesus Christ established” — “ the Church built on the foundation 
of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the Chief 
corner stone” — “ the purent sample of the primitive Church, that 
is now in the world,” — if the Congregational Church be all that is 
here represented, it is freely conceded, that the bitterness with which 
we have been assailed, admits of some palliation ; and that the as- 
sailant had some reason for representing the endeavor to establish 
the Episcopal Church as a hostile undertaking, an opposition threat- 
ening schism , hostility to the finger of God , opposition to the work of 
Grace , and an effort of the adversary to raise a storm. Of Christians 
indeed, of those who had imbibed the spirit of their Master, we might 
have expected their pity and compassion for our. grievous error — 
not their denunciations and contempt. Let us then, attend to the 
arguments advanced, and see how far they go to substantiate the 
high claims here asserted. 

But before proceeding with these, there are two facts, incontro- 
vertible facts, set forth in the “ Retrospect,” which, in the very 
outset, present a serious, an insurmountable obstacle, to the force 
of any argument whatever ; which must prove fatal to any claim of 
the Congregational Church, to one essential characteristic of that 
Evangelic Church, instituted under divine appointment. In the 
words ot “the judicious Hooker,” we challenge the advocates of Con- 


13 


gregationalism, before we can assent to their claims, we require 
them to find out but one Church upon the face of the whole Earth , that 
hath been ordered by their discipline , or hath not been ordered by 
ours ; that is to sny, by Epispocal government, since the time that 
the blessed Apostles were here conversant, down to the sixteenth 
century. In the language of Tertullian, we say, “let them produce 
the original of their Churches — let them show the order of their Bislu 
ops , that by their succession, we may see whether their first Bishop 
had any of the Apostles or apostolic men , who did likewise persevere, 
with the Apostles for his founder and predecessor.” Christ has built 
his Church “ upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets.” The 
Congregational Churches, it is admitted, were established by the 
Puritan Fathers. Our Lord declared, that against this Church the 
gates of Hell should not prevail ; but that she should continue “ al- 
ways, even unto the end of the world.” Congregationalism is an 
experiment of less than two centuries. Is it not strange, that such 
an “ organized Church and ministry,” should have been directed 
by the example of Christ, and the apostolic Churches ; should be 
taught in the word of God, and no Church have found it out, nor re- 
ceived it until so very recently ? Can an institution of such little 
antiquity, be that divine appointment which was to continue from 
apostolic days to the end of time ? Can an institution, built upon the 
foundation of John Robinson* and the Puritan Fathers, be indeed 
identified with that Church to which were given Apostles and Proph- 
ets , and Pastors, and Teachers ? And has the promise of Christ 
failed ? and have all the glorious throng of Saints, and Martyrs, and 
confessors, who, for the truth and the Gospel’s sake, did not count 
their lives dear unto them — have all the pious and the faithful that 
have lived and died, from the days of Clement, to those of Robinson 
and Congregationalism, been without the fold of the Redeemer and 
the Church of Christ ; and without the possibility of finding it, and 
gaining admission ? Yes — revolting as is the conclusion, it is inevit- 
able, if the Church of the Puritan Fathers, the experiment of two 
centuries, be indeed the Church which “ Jesus Christ established.” 

Within the limits of a single discourse, devoted too, to the variety 
of interesting topics, which might be supposed to engage the atten- 
tion of the preacher and hearers of a half century sermon, it w ere 
unreasonable to expect, that much of the argumentative would find 
a place. But if arguments were admitted upon any topic, we might 


The founder of the Congregational Sect. 


14 


reasonably suppose, that the most prominent and the most conclusive 
would be produced. We may therefore, presume that, though in 
the instance under consideration, all the testimonies in favor of the 
propositions laid down, are perhaps not noticed, yet at least, the 
most forcible and clear have been brought forward — that some of the 
most important have been introduced. Two leading topics will here 
claim our attention ; the organization of the Church and its ministry. 
Let us proceed then, in the first place, to contemplate the form of 
government and ecclesiastical constitution, of that Society, which is 
believed to be “ the purest sample of the primitive Church, that i3 
now in the world.” “ This ancient Church, (we are informed,) from 
the beginning to the present time, was [has been?] of the Congre- 
gational order” — “like all the primitive Churches of New-England.” 
But if the “ not unfrequent question” be repeated, what is “ the Con- 
gregational order,” “what is the constitution of a Congregational 
Church,” we are yet without any other than a very vague and con- 
fused reply. If it is to be found in the features of similitude which 
marked “ the primitive Churches of New-England,” it is a meagre 
skeleton indeed ; from which the existing state of things shows, that 
the life and soul have long since departed. The particulars in which 
“ this ancient Church,” at the present day, bears any resemblance 
to those which were common to the primitive Churches, are trifling 
enough, as we shall have occasion to show. If the inquirer, anx- 
ious to conform to the purest sample of the primitive Church, repeat 
the “not unfrequent inquiry, what is the constitution of a Congre- 
gational Church ?” still must he remain at a loss to say or under- 
stand, what it is. True, we are told “ it is the Bible — to the law and 
to the testimony, is the ultimate resort — in every case of discipline, 
we resort to the Bible for decision — in all cases, the ultimate decis- 
ion is, what saith the Book.” But is it necessary to remark, how ex- 
tremely equivocal any such pretension must prove, when we see the 
number of sects, all possessing the same implicit adherence to the 
Bible , and yet widely differing in their views of it ? The answer is 
certainly very unsatisfactory, do not all Christian denominations 
make the same professions ? Amongst all the varying and conflict- 
ing sects of the day, is not the same avouched ? and yet how essen- 
tially do they differ. Even among those very Societies for which 
such a peculiar deference for the Bible is so exclusively asserted, op- 
positions of opinion obtain as wide as creation. Nay, the same So- 
ciety, professing to be guided exclusively by “ the law and the testi- 
mony,” is at one time regulated by principles which at another time. 


15 

it rejects. And is not the word of God precisely the same, in all 
ages and in all places ? 

The conduct and opinions of some, who think that they are acting 
according to Scripture, are condemned by their own brethren, as 
indefensible and erroneous. While one Congregational Society are 
the advocates of high toned Calvanism, another, of the same denomi- 
nation, will be found the abettors of the Pelagian or the Socinian 
heresy. In regard to those matters which, according to Congrega- 
tional views, affect the very existence of the Church, the most con- 
tradictory opinions and practices obtain. The ministry and the or- 
dinances, circumstances of essential importance in the constitution of 
the Church, are the subjects of such opposite decisions, that it were 
absurd to claim for both, or all, the warrant of Scripture.'* The 


* To give the reader some idea of the conflicting views which they are compelled 
to adopt, who undertake the impracticable task of reconciling their opposition to 
Episcopacy, with the facts of Scripture, a few instances are here referred to. 

“ It was the opinion of the principal divines, who first settled New England and 
Connecticut, that in every Church completely organized, there was a Pastor, 
Teacher, ruling Elders, and Deacons.” These distinct offices, they imagined, 
were clearly taught in the passages, Rom. xii. 7. 1 Cor. xii. 28. 1 Tim. v. 17. 
Eph. iv. 11. (See Trumbull, vol. l,page 295, and Hooker there quoted.) On 
the other hand, the practice of the purest sample of the primitive Church, pro- 
nounces such an opinion unscriptural. 

Some Churches regarded ruling Elders as scriptural officers of a Christian 
Church, and essential to a conformity to the primitive pattern. Others again re- 
ject them, and Dr. Dwight pronounces the defection , with respect to these offi- 
cers, from the practice of the first settlers of New-England, an error in ecclesias- 
tical government. (Dwight’s Theology, Sermon clxii.) 

Some Churches had Pastors and Teachers, as distinct officers; others do not 
allow them. The early Ministers of this Society maintained, that all the Pastor’s 
office and power was confined to his own Church and Congregation, and that the 
administering of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, in other Churches, was irregular. 
Hence, an ordained Minister, called from one Church to become the Pastor of an- 
other, was required to be again ordained. In modern times, “ a Minister is sup- 
posed, by his ordination, to be constituted a Minister, not of a particular Church, 
hut of the Church of Christ at large.” 

Some Churches, professing to be guided exclusively, by “ what saith the Book,” 
reject the apostolic rite of ordaining Deacons to their office. In opposition to these, 
it is maintained, that the manner in which the Seven Deacons were set apart, is an 
authoritative example of the manner in which the Deacons are to be introduced 
into the Church. That is, that conformity to 'scripture practice requires, that all 
persons chosen to the office of Deacons, should be ordained to the duties of that 
office, by the imposition of the hands of the Presbytery. “ This mode of conse- 
cration, has been disused - in New-England, to a considerable extent,” says Dr. 
Dwight, without any valuable reason, but through mere indefensible inattention. 


16 


very question of discipline and Church membership itself, of the 
qualification essential to the constitution of a Church, has agitated 
the Churches with dissension, and shaken the whole Congregational 
system to its centre, threatening its speedy dissolution. 

Under such circumstances, and amidst such conflicting views of 
what the Scriptures direct, how is it possible for “ the solicitous in- 
quirers” after Gospel truth, to understand “ what is the constitutior. 
of a Congregational Church”? No wonder the question is not “ un- 
frequent.” Then too, to increase the perplexity upon the very back 
of the declaration, “ it is the Bible,” we are told, of “ forms ot 
faith and covenantings in each Church,” as being expedient for more 
perfect mutual understanding and fellowship — of forms of agree- 
ment in the consociated Churches, and among the associated Minis- 
ters, for the purpose of harmonious intercourse ; and then, too, w 7 e 
are informed of a constitution for regulating the Churches in Con- 
necticut, “ formed by a Synod,” of a “ system, used to this day, in 
the decision of ecclesiastical differences, and in sustaining harmoni- 
ous intercourse and fellowship, between the Churches, and among 
the ministry; and in all controversial questions that “ monumen- 

In “ the present sample of the primitive Church,” all the Deacons which have 
been chosen under its present Pastor, “ have been consecrated with Prayer and 
the laying on of the hands of the Ministry .” Was this ministry a Presbytery ? 

“ Amidst the ancient customs of this” same purest Church, and in other Church- 
es, it was “ customary for Ministers to call on the Parents and young people, to 
acknowledge publicly, what was termed the renewal of the Baptismal covenant .” 
“ Many other Churches and Pastors were persuaded that the owning of the Cov- 
enant was entirely anti-scriptural.” Besides, “ religious excitements” were deem- 
ed better, even if it were according to scripture, it bore too close a resemblance to 
“ the illusions” of prelatical “imposition” of hands — the rite of confirmation ; and 
“the practice has gone almost entirely into disuse.” “The Puritan Fathers,” 
too, if their belief is of the authority apparently allowed to it, believed it to be con- 
trary to the integrity of the Christian Church, and conscientiously refused to ad- 
minister Baptism, as it is now administered, at least, in one Church, not much 
more corrupt than “the purest sample.” The Saybrook platform itself “ whose 
sentiments are inseparable from the plain teachings of the Holy Scriptures” — the 
infallible system — directs that the infants of one or both believing Parents only , 
are to be baptised. Others break through “ the mighty bond,” and administer the 
rite to any infants whatever, and under any circumstances. Query, by what 
“ missile,” has the “ monumental pillar” been “ blotted” with such a rent ?” One 
thinks proper, to administer baptism to the children of such as make a profession of 
religion, without their being partakers of the Lord’s Supper ; another denounces 
the whole practice as unscriptural — hypocritical and introducing disorder into 
the Christian Church. By some, all persons, including infants, lawfully baptized, 
are believed to be members of the Christian Church ; by others, they are allowed 
“ neither part nor lot in this matter.” 


17 


tal pillars of the wisdom of the Father, that” m'ghty bond of union 
and order, whose astonishing potency is such, that the “ shock” of 
roarings and brayings, (O ! mighty pillar !) have never been able to 
overthrow it — the Saybrook Platform ! 

These forms of agreement, this mighty bond, we shall find, more- 
over, have had more authority allowed them, in many cases, than 
even the Law and the Testimony ; but of this, more hereafter. In the 
mean time, the dullness of comprehension is profoundly regretted, 
which understands not, whether to look for “ the constitution of the 
Congregational Church,” to the Bible, or to this “ mighty bond,” 
with its associated forms of faith and agreement. But difficult as it 
is to learn what the Congregational order is, we are at least enlight- 
ened upon the subject of the constitution of the First Ecclesiastical 
Society of Saybrook.” “ Our Fathers believed, (says the half-cen- 
tury Sermon,) that a number of Christians, entering into covenant to 
worship God according to the laws of Christ’s kingdom, and obligat- 
ing themselves to walk in Christian fellowship with each other, fully 
constituted a church of Christ. They believed, that such a Church 
was invested with power to choose their own Ministers, and exercise 
discipline, according to the rules of the Gospel.” Again, “ in the 
government of a Church, our fathers supposed the power to be plac- 
ed entirely in the members.” 

Here, so far as the belief of “ our fathers,” is authority, we are 
furnished with a view of the constitution of the Congregational So- 
ciety of Saybrook^ which is believed “to be the purest sample of the 
primitive Churchy that is now in the world /” It consists of a num- 
ber of Christians entering into covenant, to worship God according 
to the laws of Christ’s kingdom, and obligating themselves to walk in 
Christian fellowship with each other, invested with the power to 
choose their own Ministers, and exercise discipline according to the 
rules of the Gospel — the entire power being placed in the members. 
That the Bible, “ the Law and the Testimony,” furnishes one soli- 
tary example of a Church thus constituted, it is not so much as pre- 
tended. Beyond the matter of government and discipline, to sustain 
the alleged fundamental principle in its constitution, no single proof 
is attempted. Whatever conditions God himself may have prescrib- 
ed as the terms of a covenant in relation to himself — whatever pro- 
visions he may have instituted, as the mediums through which to con- 
vey the blessings of his favor and grace — however contradictory may 
be their views of what are “ the laws of Christ’s kingdom,” a num- 
ber of Christians entering into covenant to worship God according to 

3 


18 


(he laws of Christ’s kingdom, &c. “ fully constitutes a church of 
Christ.” This position, involving the most important consequences, 
is advanced upon no other authority whatever, than the mere belief 
of the Puritan Fathers, and the author of the half-century Sermon. 
“ I fully believe, (says he,) that Jesus Christ established a Congre- 
gational Church,” i. e. “ such a Church as our Fathers have here 
formed.” But when or where is it recorded, that he established such 
a Church ? Surely, when an individual gravely asserts, that “ no 
testimony of the Fathers, (of men who lived within a century of our 
Lord, and in Apostolic times,) can give divine authority to any insti- 
tution whatever,” it will not be expected, that his u I believe,” how- 
ever dogmatically expressed, will give divine authority to the Con- 
gregational Church. “/ believe it, (says he,) to be the purest sample of 
the primitive Church, that is now in the world;” but upon what evi- 
dence ? Surely, his belief can be of no weight and of no authority 
against the Bible. 

But, so far as it is affected by the question of government and disci- 
pline, an attempt is made to sustain the Congregational order, by an 
appeal to Scripture. Several arguments are advanced, but the con- 
fused manner in which they are introduced, renders their precise ap- 
plication a matter of some conjecture. Let us, however, endeavor 
to follow the author of the Retrospect, through his “ strong reasons,” 
and see if they do not entirely fail him, and if his belief and that of 
“ our Fathers,” be not the only foundation of his cause : a cause 
depending upon the “ subsequent opinions,” itself among the “sub- 
sequent establishments,” which are of no weight and of no authority 
against the Bible. 

The argument drawn from the fact, that “ Jesus ordained the 
twelve, but admitted no superiority among them,” is intended, it is 
presumed, with that which follows, relating to St. Paul’s supposed 
ordination at Antioch, to support the position advanced, of the equal 
authority of the ministry. They are, therefore, passed over, until 
we come to the consideration of that subject. We are presented 
then, with the extraordinary declaration, that “ after Paul was thus 
ordained, we find him claiming no power over the Churches, like the 
hierarchal or pontifical orders.” Here the qualification of the pow- 
er denied, by the phrase, “ like the hierarchal or pontifical orders,” 
is of little avail. It may serve to cover the weakness of the asser- 
tion, by the odium it would seek to cast upon any exercise of minis- 
terial power ; but as the declaration is advanced, in proof of the 
opinion, that the whole power of discipline was placed in the Church, 


19 


the assertion amounts to this : “ after P.iul was thus ordained, we 
find him claiming no power over the Churches.” Now, from this 
confident assertion, let us turn “ to the testimony ;” and will it not be 
a matter of astonishment, to find this very Apostle, in direct opposi- 
tion to such an assertion, not only in the full exercise of such power, 
but also giving repeated directions respecting the same exercise of 
power by others. Hear him, after giving directions for the due cel- 
ebration of the Lord’s supper, adding, in a tone of authority “ the 
rest will I set in order , when 1 come also, after enforcing certain 
commands, for the observance of the Corinthians, in a tone of equal 
authority, remarking, “ so ordain I in all Churches.’’^ Attend to his 
commands , repeatedly laid upon the Thessalonians, in the name of 
the Lord Jesus Christ, to observe his directions to his no less pos- 
itive command, Sylvanus and Timotheus, in each case, being associ- 
ated with him, “ if any man obey not our word by this Epistle, note 
that man,”§ &c. ; to his affectionate, but not therefore, the less au- 
thoritative entreaty, “We beseech you, brethren, to know them 
which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish 
you. ”|| Attend also, to his injunctions to the Hebrew Christians, 
u Remember,” — “ Obey them that have the rule over you , and submit 
yourselves ; for they watch for your souls. ”11 And is it possible, 
that any man, with these passages before him, can affirm that St. 
Paul claimed no power over the Churches ? and what does St. Paul 
mean, by the “ obedience,”* ** of the Corinthians ? by his coming 
unto them “with arod?”tt by his “ using sharpness, according to 
the power which the Lord hath given [ him ] to edification” by his 
being “ found unto [them] such as [they] would not” ?§§ by his wri- 
ting to tell them that he would “ not spare” “ them which have sin- 
ned” ?|]|| by his readiness to revenge all disobedience ?1T1[ — In fine, 
what are we to understand by his “ boasting of the authority which the 
Lord had given ” to him and Timothy, for edification ?*** his “ daily 
care of all the Churches” ?ttt Have the words here employed, a 
meaning ? and can any meaning be possibly attached to them, which 
may justify the assertion, that Paul claimed no power over the 
Churches ? — that the whole power, in the government and discipline 
of a Church, was placed entirely in the members? The direct re- 
verse appears, as clear as the light of heaven. The ignorance, or 

* 1 Cor. xi. 34 f 1 Cor. vii. 17. f 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 10, 12. 

§ 2 Thess. iii. 14. j| 1 Thess. v. 12. IT Heb. xiii. 7, 17. ** 2 Cor. x. 6. 
tf 1 Cor. iv. 21. XX 2 Cor. xiii. 10. §§ 2 Cor. xii. 20. |||| 2 Cor. xiii. 2. 

HIT 2 Cor. x. 6. *** 2 Cor. x. 8. fff 2 Cor. xi. 28. 


20 


utter disregard of the testimony of Scripture, which the assertion 
betrays, will serve to show what degree of confidence is to be placed 
in other like positive declarations. But further, the very passages 
specified, to prove that St. Paul “ places the whole power in the 
Church,” establish the direct contrary. “ I verily, (says he,) 
as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as 
though I were present, him that hath so done this deed, in the name 
of our Lord Jesus, (you and my spirit being assembled together,) 
with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto 
Satan,”* &c. This passage is referred to, as furnishing an example 
of the primitive Church. Here we are told, that St. Paul “ writes 
to the brethren of the Church at Corinth, (which then was probably 
without a pastor,) to exercise the Church’s power of discipline upon 
the open offender among them, and excind him from their fellowship.” 
“Afterwards, when he found this offender become a penitent, he 
writes to them, that they ought to forgive and comfort him.” The 
whole force of the argument in favor of Congregationalism, rests 
upon the assumption , that at the time when the Apostle wrote, “ the 
Church at Corinth was probably without a Pastor.” Whatever, upon 
the admission of such a probability , may be the inference, the con- 
trary is fatal to the Congregational cause. Even supposing, for a 
moment, that the Church was without a Pastor, the language of the 
Apostle, as will presently appear, is more than the advice of a Chris- 
tian, and especially of a Congregational Minister, to a destitute So- 
ciety — and should the case prove to be probably contrary to such 
unfounded supposition, in what possible way can the Apostle’s dicta- 
tion be reconciled with Congregational principles ? But the supposi- 
tion is extremely improbable ; and being necessary to the point, 
which it is introduced to establish, it requires satisfactory proof. The 
probability, nay, the evident fact, is in direct opposition to the decla- 
ration. In the first place, there were more than a single Church or 
congregation in Corinth ; for St. Paul himself, though he addresses 
his Epistle to “the Church of God which is at Corinth, ”f speaks 
also, of “ the Churches ” there ;J and it is exceedingly improbable, 
that in so important a city as that of Corinth, several congregations 
should at the same time be destitute of their pastors. In the next 
place, a portion of this very Epistle, § is occupied with censures up. 
on the irregularities of the Corinthians, in the celebration of the 
Lord’s supper, and directions for its proper reception. Do Congre- 

* 1 Cor. v. 3—5. f 1 Cor. i. 2 f 1 Cor. xiv 34. § 1 Cor. xi. 20—34. 


21 


gationalists then, it is asked, sanction the administration of that sa- 
crament by the hands of an unauthorized person — or was the Church 
at Corinth, indeed provided with a Pastor? The latter conclusion 
must, of course, be the true one ; and thus is established the author- 
ity of the Apostle, not only over “ the members,” but also over such 
as exercised the ministerial office in the Church. For, unless pos- 
sessed of such authority, what right had the Apostle to interfere — 
what occasion or propriety could there be, in his writing to the min- 
isters and people of the Corinthian Church, in the manner in* which 
he does ? Hence, is seen the importance of getting rid of these 
ministers, to substantiate the position asserted. From what has been 
noticed, too, appears the necessity, in the absence of any evidence, 
and in the face of facts, of declaring it probable that the Church was 
without a pastor. The language of the Apostle, moreover, admits 
of no misconception whatever. “ I, (says he,) have judged (xsx^ixa), 
already” — I have decided — passed sentence ot condemnation. The 
punishment pronounced, the Apostle declares to be that which he 
himself has adjudged ; as that too, which he would inflict were he 
present, which he does decree, being absent. To show that the 
Apostle possessed the unquestionable authority to exercise the power 
here ascribed to him, we have an instance of the actual exercise of 
that power in inflicting the very punishment here adjudged upon — 
“ Hymeneus and Alexander — whom,” says St. Paul, “I have de- 
livered unto Satan.”* 

In his second Epistle to the Corinthian Church, the Apostle be- 
seeches those to whom he writes “to forgive and comfort” the of* 
fender ; for these were moral acts which, with all his Apostolic au- 
thority, he could not compel any man to perform — still that authority 
is manifestly asserted, in immediate connexion with this exhortation, 
when, in reference to the very case under consideration, he affirms 
expressly, “to this end also, did I write, that I might know the proof 
of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.”? What means obedi- 
ence, when there is no authority to command it? Certainly, as St. 
Paul exacted, and would test the obedience of the Corinthians, sa 
certainly had he the right to require it. 

Another, and the last passage, which is introduced to prove that, 
“ in the government of a Church, the power is placed entirely in the 
members,” is that in which our Lord directs an offended brother, in 
case the previous steps prescribed should fail, to tell the offender’s 


1 Tim. i. 20. 


f 2 Cor. 2, 7 — 9. 


22 


fault to the Church.* Here we are told, that Christ “directs his 
disciples to carry their cases of discipline before the Church, as the 
tribunal of ultimate decision,” where the “ offender was irreclaim- 
able by the preceding process.” “ The power of the Church is 
shown,” it is said, by the subsequent words, “ verily, I say unto you, 
whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.”! 
Here, it is alleged, “the full and ultimate power is given to the 
Church, or body of believers.” It would have proved fatal to the 
Congregational argument, to proceed with the quotation, and the en- 
suing words are therefore omitted : “ Again, I say unto you, that if 
two of you shall agree on earth, as touching any thing that they shall 
ask, it shall be done for them, of my Father which is in Heaven ; 
for where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am 
I in the midst of them.”j The phraseology here employed, with 
the connexion in which these verses stand, shows that the words of 
our Saviour were evidently designed to assure to the constituted au- 
thorities of his Church, the divine sanction of their decisions. This 
sanction is pledged to the acts of two or three, convened in the name 
of Christ, i. e. in the exercise of authority derived from him. But 
“ the full and ultimate power is given, (it is said,) to the body of be- 
lievers.” And do the advocates of this opinion, indeed allow such 
a weight of authority to the decisions of any two or three of their 
number? If so, then the power is not given to the body of believ- 
ers ; and if not so, then are they not the Church to which Christ here 
refers. If we attend to the language of our Lord, and are willing to 
believe it to be consistent with all other parts of the inspired word, 
the whole passage, like the other adduced, proves the direct contra- 
ry of that which they are advanced to support. He most assuredly 
would be complying with the letter and the spirit of the Saviour’s 
precept, to bring the case in question before the Church, who should 
bring it before the constituted authority of the Church, whatever it 
might be. What that authority is, Scripture must determine. To 
assume, that the passage under consideration, establishes the Con- 
gregational discipline and government, is begging the question at 
issue, i. e. it is taking for granted the very thing, which the passage 
is introduced to support. If other passages of Scripture give evi- 
dence of an authority, existing in an order of officers appointed for 
the government of the Church, by such passages is this to be inter- 
preted. Such have already been referred to, and more shall be no- 


* Mat. xviii. 17. 


t Mat. xviii. 18. 


$ Mat. xviii. 19 — 20. 


23 


ticed hereafter. But without appealing to these, the very language 
before us, shows us that no such exercise of Church discipline, as is 
contended for, was contemplated — that the full and ultimate power 
is not given to the body of believers. Our Lord addressed his twelve 
disciples, as the constituted officers of his Church — one of their num- 
ber, St. Peter, having already been invested with the authority in- 
tended, when our Divine Redeemer declared, “ I will give unto thee 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven^; and whatsoever thou shalt bind 
on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose 
on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”* In this instance, we see that 
power bestowed upon a single individual, which it is said was “given 
not to a Prelate, but to the body of believers.” It was not limited to 
St. Peter, but in the case under consideration, the same authority is 
vested in the twelve, while there is no evidence whatever, that it ex- 
tended “ to the body of believers.” That this authority belonged ex- 
clusively to those officers whom Christ appointed over his Church, 
is placed beyond all possible doubt, by the record of St John, ac- 
cording to whom, our Saviour expressly says, “whose soever sins ye 
remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, 
they are retained.”! A particle of evidence is here challenged, to 
show that any such power was in any case bestowed upon the mem- 
bers of a Church. 

The passages of Scripture referred to, to refute the several posi- 
tions which have been the subject of consideration, might have been 
greatly multiplied. The difficulty has been, among the large num- 
ber at hand, to make a selection- They have been introduced there- 
fore, as they occurred, many of equal weight and importance being 
omitted. There are beside, several others of a most conclusive na- 
ture, which will be introduced in connexion with the subject of the 
ministry, when that comes under consideration. And now an ap- 
peal is made to the reader’s candid judgment, to decide, what is the 
conclusion to which we are necessarily led, respecting the import of 
the Scriptures which have already been considered ? What is the 
necessary inference ? Is it not perfectly manifest, that they go to 
show that the power of government and discipline is not placed in the 
members of a Church : that so far as conformity to the Scripture ex- 
ample of government and discipline, is essential to the integrity of a 
Church, and, so far as the arguments which have been examined, 
decide the question, the Congregational Church, at Saybrook, is 


Mat. xvi. 19. 


f John, xx. 23. 


24 


very far from being “ the purest sample of the primitive Church that 
19 now in the world”? that it has no sort of claim to the distinction, 
of being the Church which Christ established ? We have seen, that 
the arguments advanced, in proof of the position, that the Congrega- 
tional form of Church government and discipline, are most conforma- 
ble to primitive example, so far from establishing that point, go direct, 
ly to disprove it. We have seen, that St. Paul did claim and ex- 
ercise authority over the Churches ; that St. Peter and the rest of 
the Apostles were invested by our Lord himself, with the most am- 
ple powers, under the solemn sanction, whatsoever ye shall bind on 
earth , shall be bound in heaven . The inference justly and necessarily 
deducible from these facts is, that so far as they determine the mat- 
ter, the Congregational Church is very wide of the high pretensions 
asserted for it. Nay, it is lamentably deficient in these respects, of 
any claim whatever to the character of the Church of Christ. 

In coming to this conclusion, the writer is not aware of any un- 
charitable influence. He believes it to be the necessary, inevitable 
inference, from the word of God. All that he asks of the reader is, 
to examine, with prayer and an humble frame of mind — to examine 
and judge for himself. “ Let every man be fully persuaded in his 
own mind.” 


€ © !\ G R E © A T IONA I, M OSIS T R Y * 


Having considered and perceived the litter insufficiency of the ar- 
guments advanced, in support of the Congregational Church, so far 
as its government and discipline are Concerned, we come now to the 
investigation of a subject of vital importance, a subject involving the 
most serious consequences, affecting the integrity of the Christian 
ordinances, and for aught that can be shown to the contrary, one 
which concerns the dearest interests of man. I mean the Christian 
ministry ; that ministry with whom the presence of the Saviour is 
promised, “ even unto the end of the world”* — that ministry of which 
our Lord hath said, “ he that receiveth you, receiveth me,”t and 
“ he that depiseth you despiseth me”| — that ministry in fellowship 
with which the primitive Church “ continued steadfastly, ”§ and thus 
furnished to the world one unequivocal characteristic of the Church 
of Christ — “ the ministry of reconciliation. ”|| Whatever views may 
be entertained of the importance of adhering to the primitive pattern 
of government and discipline, here is a matter about which it would 
scarcely seem possible that two opinions could obtain. Christ has 
appointed an order of men to act in his name as “ambassadors for”1F 
him, “ and stewards of the mysteries of God”** — them he has or- 
dained to “ preach the Gospel” of salvation to a lost worldft — them 
he has commissioned by the sacred rite of baptism, JJ to admit into 
his Church such as would be saved§§ — them he has authorized, in a 
way of his own institution, to commemorate his dying love and ad- 
' minister the emblems of the great sacrifice, to such as hope for sal- 
vation through his blood. ||[| And O how deeply are they interested, 
to be well persuaded in their own minds — they to whom the Gospel 
of Salvation is proposed — they who would assure themselves of 
their being admitted into the number of “ such as shall be saved” — 
they who would not substitute a solemn mockery of the Redeemer’s 
dying ordinance for the hallowed rite itself, how deeply are they 

* Mat. xxviii. 20. f Mat. x. 40. X Luke x. 36. § Acts ii. 42. 

J| 2 Cor. v. 18. IT 2 Cor. v. 20. ** 1 Cor. iv. 3. ff Mark xvi. 15. 

XX Mat. xxviii. 19. §§ Acts ii. 41, 47. !||| Luke xxii. 19. 

4 


26 


concerned to know that he who comes to them in the name, is in 
reality, the commissioned and authorized “ ambassador for Christ.” 
I say it is a subject of vital importance. For manifestly they, whoev- 
er they may be, who “come in the name” of Jesus Christ and with- 
out his authority, presume to exercise the office of a Minister in his 
Church : they who are not in the way of Christ’s own ordinance 
invested with power so to do, and contrary to his appointment in- 
trude into an office of his institution, must be guilty of a grievous 
usurpation ; and all who knowingly unite with such, are participators 
in the fearful crime ! Each time that they listen to the preaching of 
such self-constituted ministers, are they abetting a grievous usurp- 
ation ; each time they receive from such the emblems of the Re- 
deemer’s crucified body and shed blood, are they countenancing a 
most outrageous mockery of the Saviour’s dying memorial. “ He 
that biddeth [them] God speed, is a partaker of [their] evil deeds.”* 
Startling as this position may seem, it will be found much more diffi- 
cult to decry than to disprove it. The subject of the Christian min- 
istry then, is one of vital importance, and as we value our soul’s sal- 
vation, and as we would “ do the will” of God, are we solemnly called 
upon to weigh well the pretensions of whatever persons come to us 
in the name of Christ. Before proceeding to examine the testimo- 
nies referred to, as decisive of the primitive organization of the 
Christian ministry, it is proper briefly to attend to a very convenient 
method which is adopted, in order to get rid of a weight of evidence 
which, though not essential, has a very strong bearing upon the sub- 
ject. A most extraordinary and amazing assertion, and a no less 
extraordinary illustration are resorted to, with a view of consigning 
all the testimonies of all the early Fathers, without any regard to ad- 
vantages or integrity to the mass of things unworthy of credit. The 
extraordinary assertion which is employed to answer so useful a 
purpose, is this : “ No testimony of the Fathers can give divine au- 
thority to any institution whatever.” The position be it remember- 
ed, is assumed with a view of excluding a certain description of evi- 
dence, respecting the primitive organization of the Christian Church 
and ministry. Let the assumption be admitted, and what are the 
consequences. The sacred rite of baptism is administered to in- 
fants, under the solemnities of a divine institution, chiefly upon the 
‘ testimony” which “ the Fathers” give to the primitive practice. 
The observation of the first day of the week, as the divinely appoint- 


2 John 11. 


27 


fcd Sabbath, rests essentially upon the same testimony. Nay, the 
blessed record of God’s revealed will, with all its animating hopes 
and cheering consolations, animating and cheering only, as they 
are the authentic declarations of the Eternal, is handed down to us 
as of ‘‘divine authority,” upon the “testimony of the Fathers.” 
Yet are we boldly assured, that “no testimony of the Fathers can 
give divine authority to any institution whatever and thus an in- 
dividual who professes to be a Minister of Jesus Christ , is found vir- 
tually denying the divine institution of infant baptism , of the Christian 
Sabbath, and even the divine inspiration of the Bible itself* 

* The strange language so positively expressed, is borrowed from Dr. Dwight, 
and to show how much confidence he entertained in his assertion, and how very 
limited was his own application of it, it is worthy of remark, that even he could 
quote the “ testimony of the Fathers,” in one instance at least, as of “ a witness 
of high authority ,” and together as sufficient fully to establish the divine appoint- 
ment of an institution of much questioned propriety. Admitting “ that there is no 
instance in which it is declared in so many terms that infants were baptized,” he 
maintains that the practice and “ testimony of the Fathers” are sufficient to show, 
that it was not introduced in any age, subsequent to that of the Apostles : and to 
prove that infant baptism was uniformly practiced by the early Christians, he ap- 
peals to a few of those very Fathers, whose testimony upon the subject of Epis- 
copacy, is set aside as unworthy of consideration. After enumerating their various 
intimations, (not direct proofs,) in support of the opinion which he adopts, he adds, 
“ had the baptism of infants been introduced in any age, subsequent to that of the 
Apostles, these things could not have been, nor could the history of them have 
been found.” And why is not the same, reasoning, and the more express “ testi- 
mony of the Fathers,” equally applicable to the subject of the ministry ; and why 
do they not prove equally conclusive in this as in the former case ? The same 
writer, acknowledging that “ the duty of mankind to celebrate the Christian Sab- 
bath,” is not “ expressly commanded or expressly declared in Scripture,” to prove 
its “ divine institution,” appeals to the “testimony of the Fathers.” Their very 
limited but satisfactory evidence, he closes with the observation, that they who in 
addition to the first day celebrated the Jewish Sabbath in the fifth century, “plainly 
adopted it as they did a great multitude of other corruptions, merely from, //mV 
own construction of the Scriptures ” Thus declaring that neglect to admit the 
practice and “ testimony of the Fathers” in interpreting the Scriptures, led to “ a 
great multitude of corruptions.” See Dwight's Theology, Serm. cviii. cvii. cvi. 

Why the same construction of the Scriptures, excluding the practice and “ tes- 
timony of the Fathers,” may not lead to “other corruptions” respecting the Church 
and ministry, it would be difficult to explain. With what consistency, moreover, 
it is asked, can an individual receive the canon of Scripture, the books of the 
New Testament handed down to us by the Fathers, such as they tell us were the 
productions of inspired men, rejecting all others, and yet refuse to receive that in- 
stitution of the ministry which that very same testimony declares to be divine ? 
Such evidence is perfectly satisfactory upon any other important point ; but when 
applied to Episcopacy, then “ no testimony of the Fathers can give divine author- 
ity to any institution whatever.” 


28 


Why, the assertion is thevery weapon of the infidel, it is the strong 
hold within which he entrenches himself against the evidences of the 
Christian faith. Tell him of the recorded testimony of men of uiv 
impeachable integrity — of the blood of Martyrs freely shed in attes- 
tation of the truth — of persecutions encountered and sufferings en- 
dured, and death in its most appalling forms fearlessly met, and he 
will repel the force of all by the same position. True he will say, 
they may have been sincere, they may have believed what they 
said : but “ no testimony of the Fathers can give divine authority to 
any institution whatever.” Knowing the differences which separate 
us, the writer was led, of course, to regard his brethren of other de- 
nominations as holding errors of greater or less moment; but never 
was he prepared to see a body of men calling themselves Christians, 
descend so low as to adopt an infidel’s argument, to rid themselves of 
the testimonies which bear against them — an argument which, if ad- 
mitted, must prove subversive of the most sacred institutions, nay, 
divest of their high authority the “ oracles of God” themselves. Yet 
here we have it uttered by the Pastor of a Society which is believed 
to be “ the purest sample of the primitive Church that is now in the 
world” — of a Society which “ has been a great advocate for a pious , 
learned , and evangelic ministry,” and endorsed by “ a meeting of the 
First Ecclesiastical Society in Saybrook f that “ no testimony of the 
Fathers can give divine authority to any institution whatever.”* 

* Although the “half century Sermon” is ushered into the world nominally, 
under the auspices “ of the First Ecclesiastical Society in Saybrook,” yet is the 
writer of this reply by no means disposed, to hold all the members of that commu- 
nity responsible for the denunciations, the follies and the absurdities with which 
that production abounds. Happy is he to be assured that they are utterly dis- 
claimed by those whose piety and good sense entitle their opinions to respect. The 
facts of the case appear to be these. After “ prophetic denunciations had fulmina- 
ted” for a sufficient time, portending a terrible chastisement upon ** the Prelatical 
Church” — the fearful threatening was at length realized in the infliction of a Ser- 
mon or “ Retrospect on the ministry and Church of Saybrook.” Several weeks 
subsequently to the “ shock,” “at a meeting of the First Ecclesiastical Society in 
Saybrook,” it was proposed that “ a copy of the half century Sermon” should be 
requested “ for publication.” At the same time, in order to secure a vote to that 
effect, the Society were assured, that this would involve them in no expense , that 
their assent alone was asked ; several individuals having determined to publish the 
discourse upon their own account .Ignorance of their full import, in some instances, 
and in others an understanding that the objectionable parts were to be omitted, led 
to the adoption of the proposed resolution. When, however, “the Society’s Com- 
mittee” applied to the author for a copy of the “ Retrospect,” lo ! it was already 

in the hands of the Printer, and beyond the reach of expurgation. But no sooner 


\ 


29 


But no less extraordinary than the assertion itself, is the manner 
in which it is illustrated. “ A single instance to this point,” is that 
“to Ignatius, an early Father in the Church at Antioch,” “fifteen 
Epistles are ascribed,” of which “ eight are. spurious,” “and the oth- 
er seven dubious in many points.” “ His testimony,” we are told, 
does “ not favor the idea of a Diocesan Bishop ;” and we are led to 
understand, that it does favor Congregationalism. Besides, we 
are informed “ he never speaks of confirmation. 5 “ Clement of 

Rome,” “ and Polycarp of Smyrna,” “ never speak of three orders.” 
Ergo. “ No testimony of the Fathers can give divine authority to any 
institution whatever.” Q. E. D. Now if any person can perceive 
the most remote connexion between the alleged circumstances and 
the infidel proposition which they are introduced to corroborate, he 
must possess a degree of sagacity beyond what ordinarily falls to the 
share of mere mortals. Some of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius 
are spurious — others dubious — he never speaks of confirmation, and 
his testimony favors Congregationalism. Clement and Polycarp, 
never mention three orders — therefore, “no testimony of the Fathers 
can give divine authority to any institution whatever.” The argu- 
ment is worthy the position.* 

To stay to correct the confident statements which make up the 
“ instance to the point,” is not now needful, they will form the sub- 
ject of future consideration. In order to counteract however, the 
false impression which they might produce, it is sufficient to de- 
clare, that in the only important points, they are as erroneous as they 
are confident. The truth is, that the writings of the early Fathers, 
furnish such a weight of evidence in favor of Episcopacy, that its op- 

was it published and its readers made better acquainted with its contents, than its 
language and spirit were condemned, and its sentiments disavowed by those who 
had assented to its publication in their name. These indications of a premeditated 
and determined assault, formed a chief inducement to the publication of this reply. 
When however, the writer adopts a phraseology implicating more than a single 
person, he desires to be understood as referring not to the individuals of the “ First 
Society” generally, but to those who knew what they voluntarily published to the 
world , less to the detriment of the cause they aimed to injure, than to the Christ- 
ian regrets of their brethren, the wounding of peace and charily and the discredit 
of their own profession. 

* A reference to Dwight’s Theology, Sermon cli. will show that this miserable 
attempt to discredit the “ testimony of the Fathers,” is a wretched confounding of 
several arguments upon distinct points. Without perceiving its force and applica- 
tion, an “ instance” is adopted from one point to illustrate another, so far different, 
3S to render the want of connexion and the absurdity sufficiently striking. 


30 


ponents dare not venture upon that testimony, and are therefore SO' 
licitious to reject it, as it would now seem at no matter what hazard. 
Only put down Episcopacy, no fear for the consequences. The 
word of God and the institutions of the Gospel may all go with it. 

With reference to the government and discipline of the Church, 
the remark has been made, and now again with respect to the min- 
istry it is repeated, that if in these particulars the Society by which 
we are denounced, can sustain its claim to coincidence with the 
Church which Christ established, its pretensions to being “ the pur- 
est sample of the primitive Church that is now in the world,” their 
desire to brand the establishment of the Episcopal Church — the 
Episcopal government and discipline and ministry as “ opposition to 
the finger of God,” “ hostility” to “the work of divine Grace,” and 
“ an effort” of the invidious Adversary , admits of some extenuation. 
But should an appeal “to the Law and the Testimony,” show that in 
its ministry as well as in its government and discipline, “ the Con- 
gregational Church” is entirely deficient of the marks of a scriptural 
organization — that the Episcopal Church retains the characteristics 
of the Church “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Proph- 
ets,” how bold must their presumption be, how awful their respon- 
sibility, who can thus denounce and stigmatize “ the Church of God 
which he hath redeemed with his own blood,”* and are thus “ found 
to be fighting even against God.”t In regard to the organization of 
the ministry, “they” [our Fathers,] says the author of the “ Retros- 
pect,” “acknowledged no superior order ;” “but considered Bishops, 
Elders, and Presbyters, as of the same standing and of equal au- 
thority.” “ In this, they supposed they had for their direction the 
example of Christ, and the Apostolic Churches.” “They also be- 
lieved that there were but two offices in the Church, Bishops and 
Deacons,” to support which belief it is said, that “Paul writes (?) to 
the Elders of Ephesus, to meet him at Miletus, and addresses them 
as Bishops.” Here then in the very face of the “ acknowledgment ,” 
that there was “no superior order in the ministry ’ — is the belief as- 
serted that there were “two grades of distinction. To avoid the 
difficulty, it is true, the distinction which is denied to the ministry, is 
allowed “to the officers of the Church” — but that Deacons were Min- 
isters in the Church as their name imports, will subsequently be 

* Acts xx. 28. f Acts v. 39. 

X This statement of the belief of the Fathers, limiting the offices to two, is in- 
correct. See note, page 15. 




31 


made to appear. But here we have an argument in favor of the 
Congregational scheme of one order , and “ but two offices” based 
upon the fact — that the names Bishop and Elder are used indis- 
criminately of the same persons. Now any attempt to found an ar- 
gument upon the use of these terms, only betrays the author’s igno- 
rance of the merits of the question which he has undertaken to dis- 
cuss. That the word “ Bishop,” is applied in Scripture to the sec- 
ond order of the ministry, has never been disputed, and is freely con- 
ceded, and the opponents of Episcopacy are sincerely welcome to 
all the advantage they can possibly derive from the fact. The use 
of names is a matter of very little moment ; things are the important 
subjects. The term Bishop signifies an overseer , and it is equally 
applicable in this general sense, to the overseer of a single congre- 
gation, and of a Diocese or several congregations. Its application 
to the former, does not disprove the existence of the more general 
overseer in the exercise of peculiar powers. If Scripture sustains 
the position that there were three distinct grades or orders of Minis- 
ters, one of which, exclusively exercised the powers peculiar to that 
office which now belongs to a Bishop, another of which discharged 
the more limited functions of a Presbyter, and to the third of which, 
were assigned the present duties of a Deacon — it cannot be denied 
that in such a case we should have all the precedent requisite to au- 
thorize the perpetuity of said distinctions — it would be idle to argue 
that there was “no superior order in the ministry,” that all were “ of 
the same standing and of equal authority” — although the names now 
appropriated to two respective orders were at first applied to one 
and the same. Nor yet does the application to one order of a title 
generally appropriated to another, as of “ Presbyter” to an Apostle, 
establish the equality of the two. Christ is styled an “ Apostle and 
High Priest,”* a “Bishop,”! a “ Deacon.”! Would any one thence 
infer that he possessed no power and authority in the Church above 
that of an Apostle, or Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacons ? In order 
to establish the Congregational scheme, it is not enough to show that 
a Presbyter at Ephesus, was called a Bishop. It is necessary to 
disprove the ministerial character of St. Stephen and St. Philip, to 
show that though Deacons, yet being ordained with prayer and the 
impositions of hands, § engaged in preaching the Gospel, || and bap- 
tizing,^ theirs was not to be ranked as a grade of the ministry. It 

* Heb. iii. 1. t 1 Pet. ii. 25. % foaxw v. Pom. xv. 8. § Acts vi. 6, 

|| Acts vi. 10, &c. viii. 5. 40. * Acts viii. 38. 


32 


is likewise necessary to show that the office of an Apostle was ill 
nothing beyond that of a Presbyter — that Timothy and Titus though 
commissioned to ordain and to exercise jurisdiction over Presbyters, 
were yet possessed merely of an ‘‘equal authority” with them. “ For 
certainly,” remarks one of the most able opponents of Episcopacy* 
“ it does not follow from the nature of the thing, that because Bishop 
and Presbyter mean the same office, therefore there is no other 
officer above them.”* The very fact contended for is, that three 
distinct orders in the ministry are found in Scripture, under the de- 
nominations of “Apostles,” “ Bishops” or “ Presbyters,” and “ Dea- 
cons.” “For,” says Theodoret, an early historian, “ those now 
called Bishops, were anciently called Apostles, but in process of 
time, the name Apostle was left to those who were truly Apostles, 
and the name of Bishops was restrained to those who were anciently 
called Apostles. Thus Epaphroditus was the Apostle of the Philip- 
pians, Titus of the Cretans, and Timothy of the Asiatics.” Although 
then the names “ Bishops, Elders and Presbyters,” were originally 
applied to individuals “of the same standing and of equal authority,” 
this does not furnish the least support whatever, to the supposition 
that there was, “ no superior order in the ministry.” 

But when they acknowledged no such order, “they supposed they 
had for their direction the example of Christ.” He “ordained the 
twelve, but admitted no superiority among them :” but when “ he 
found them aspiring for pre-eminence, and disputing who should be 
the greatest in his kingdom,” “he rebuked their ambition, and 
taught them humility.” And upon these circumstances, are ground- 
ed the belief that there was “ no superior order in the ministry.” 
Here it is certainly a matter of conjecture, which furnishes the most 
powerful support to what the Fathers acknowledged ; the fact assert- 
ed, or the illustration. Was it because our Lord checked their “ as- 
pirations for pre-eminence” and'greatness, and “rebuked their ambi- 
tion,” that we too are to acknowledge no superior in the ministry 1 
If we may be allowed to judge from certain plain indications, we 
may find that the breast of a Presbyter or a Pastor, can harbor de- 
sires after pre-eminence and greatness, without the temptation of a 
mitre ; that if the practice of humility be inconsistent with the ex- 
ercise of Episcopal power and authority, it might also dispense with 
those of another description. But let us attend to the full force of 

* Dr. Mason’s works, vol. iii. page 61. 




33 

the position. “Jesus ordained the twelve, but admitted no superior- 
ity among them therefore, “ the purest sample of the primitive 
Church,” acknowledges no superior order in the ministry. The full 
weight of this logical deduction, can be best estimated, by reference 
to a supposed case in our future history. The legislative authority of 
of this Union, is vested in two bodies, one of them, in several particu- 
lars, possessing powers which do not belong to the other ; for in- 
stance, that of confirming the appointment of political Ministers to 
other governments. Now, let us suppose at some future period, the 
government and institutions of our country should become a matter 
of mere history, which God forbid : or, in the case of their perpetu- 
ity and immutability, the parallel would be more strict. Let us sup- 
pose, too, that some future people, pretending to frame a govern- 
ment similar to our own, and well persuaded of the advantages of 
simplicity, in its organization, should contend that our constitution 
recognized but one body of men, in the discharge of legislative func- 
tions — that to all who were engaged in the affairs of legislation, be- 
longed equal powers. And let us suppose, that in support of this 
opinion, they should urge, that we had instituted a Senate, “ but ad- 
mitted no superiority among them that, although there did’appear 
some indications of a disposition on their part, to exercise peculiar 
powers, yet, that an authentic document, expressly declared, “ that 
all men are born free and equal consequently, there was no such 
distinction as two houses in the legislature, there was no such body 
recognized as a House of Representatives, the genius of the Con- 
stitution prohibited any such thing. The argument would be fully 
as conclusive, as that under consideration, and just about as wise. 
“Jesus ordained the twelve, but admitted no superiority among 
them” therefore, the Fathers of “the purest sample of the primitive 
Church,” acknowledged no superior order in the ministry. In what 
possible manner does the fact justify the inference ? Our Lord 
might have ordained the twelve, with equal authority, and ten thou- 
sand inferior orders would never have affected their equality with 
each other, as a superior order in the ministry ; their existence does 
not disprove the divine appointment of another and another order 

and in what manner their equality could at all interfere with the 

institution of the subordinate grades, it is difficult to conjecture. 

Another instance adduced, in support of the divine authority of 
Congregationalism, is the alleged ordination of St. Paul at Antioch. 

5 


34 


— “ Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch, certain 
prophets and teachers ; as Barnabas and Simeon — and Lucius of 
Cyrene and Manaen — and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord 
and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for 
the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted 
and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.”* 
Here it is said, that “ Paul, though called of Heaven to be an Apos- 
tle to the Gentiles, is seen intermingling with the Prophets and teach- 
ers at Antioch, and was ordained by them with prayer and the laying 
on of hands.” And it is added, “here is simply the equal authority 
of the teachers in that Church, a Presbytery of Elders,” Now, the 
passage is confidently appealed to, in support of the assertion, that it 
authorizes no such statement . There is not a particle of proof to be 
found in it, that St. Paul was ordained by a Presbytery of Elders . 
On the contrary, the briefly detailed events of the Apostle’s life, 
show the declaration to be decidedly incorrect. The particular 
passage under consideration, furnishes no evidence of an ordination 
at all ; if there were an ordination, there is no proof that it was per- 
formed by the individuals there named ; or if it was an ordination 
performed by the individuals named, the notion of their being “ a 
Presbytery of Elders” is mere assumption. If there were an ordi- 
nation to a ministerial office, it is asked, what office might it be ? 
Paul had already been engaged seventeen years! in “ preaching 
Christ” — made “a Minister and a witness” of the Gospel, at the time 
of his conversion, and commissioned then to go tc the Gentiles ; he 
“was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision,” but entered at once 
upen the discharge of his solemn duties ;J “ preaching the faith 
which he once destroyed. ”§ Together with Barnabas, he had la- 
bored in the work of his calling, a year at Antioch. || In the very 
passage under consideration, he is styled a Prophet or teacher, one 
who “ ministered to the Lord.” To what then, was St. Paul or- 
dained ? — to a higher office in the ministry ? This of course, our 
opponents cannot admit. The mere circumstance of the imposi- 
tion of hands, accompanied with prayer, ascertains nothing. Among 
other instances, it was practiced in the rite of confirmation. IT Thus 
we find <£ the doctrine of laying on of hands,” classed with repent- 
ance, faith, and baptism, among “ the principles of the doctrine of 

♦ Acts xiii. 1 — 3. f Compare Gal. i.18, ii. 1. with Acts ix. 26. xi. 3(k 

{ Acts xxvi. 16—20. ix. 20, 22, 27, 29. § Gal. i. 23. 

|| Acts xi. 25, 26. If Acts viii. 17. xix. 6. 


35 


Christ.”* It was frequently practiced likewise in restoring the dis- 
eased, as in the case of St. Paul himself, Annanias was sent to “ put 
his hands on him, that he might receive his sight.”']' And with what 
claim to consistency, can the Congregationalist allow to the mere cir- 
cumstance that hands were imposed, sufficient weight to establish 
the fact of an ordination to the ministry, and reject the same con- 
clusion under precisely the same circumstances, in regard to “ the 
seven” at Jerusalem ?| The plain truth is, that according to the di- 
rection of the Holy Ghost, Paul and Barnabas were separated for a 
particular work of a temporary nature ; for we find them having ac- 
complished it, and returning “to Antioch, from whence they had 
had been recommended to the grace of God, for the work which 
they fulfilled. ”§ This then, would appear to be the full import of 
the passage — they “ were recommended to the grace of God for the 
work” upon which they were about to enter. If this amounted to 
an ordination, then do we find St. Paul the subject of a re-ordina- 
tion when in conjunction with Silas himself a Prophet, || he was 
again “ recommended by the brethren to the grace of God,”1T in 
this same Antioch, when about to re-visit the cities where he had 
already “ preached the word of the Lord.”** 

The language of the Apostle himself, shows most conclusively, 
that neither “ at Antioch,” nor elsewhere, was he “ordained by — a 
presbytery of Elders,” or by “ any prelatical power,” or by Apos- 
tles, or even “ by the brethren — the body of believers.” Asserting 

* Heb. vi. 1, 2. f Acts ix. 12. % Acts vi. 5,6. § Acts xiv. 26. 

|| Acts xv. 32. IT Acts xv. 40. 

** Acts xv. 36. The presumption is at least as fair as some that have been ven- 
tured in the form of confident assertions, that St. Paul, in this case, for the first 
time received a valid ordination ; for here, for the first time, do we meet with an 
instance of one of the genuine Congregational stamp, only supposing what requires 
comparatively no great effort of the imagination, that here was an ordination. 
“ Though called of Heaven to be an Apostle” Paul’s commission from such a 
source, was radically defective upon Congregational principles. Though recom- 
mended to the grace of God, “with prayer, and the laying on of hands,” still was 
there an essential defect upon Congregational principles, for this was done by “ a 
presbytery of elders.” In neither case had the church, “ the members, the body 
of believers,” in whom the whole power is placed, given their sanction to his min- 
isterial character, the essential warrant, the vox populi, was yet wanting; and it was 
not until more than twenty years after his entrance upon the duties of the minis- 
try, that we have a vestige of evidence, that St. Paul became an authorized minis- 
ter of Jesus Christ , upon Congregational principles! 


36 


his Apostolic character,* he expressly disclaims the agency of any 
human authority whatever, in conferring it. He declares that it was 
“not of men, neither by man ;’"t that immediately upon his being 
called to preach the Gospel, he “ conferred not with flesh and 
blood, neither went he up to Jerusalem to them which were apos- 
tles before him.”J the revelation of Jesus Christ” was he made 
“a minister and a witness of the things which he had seen,” and “ im- 
mediately” was he “ obedient unto the heavenly vision. ”§ 

But granting, for the sake of argument, that an ordination was 
performed in the instance at Antioch, still it is not said by whom. 
The direction of the Holy Ghost amounted to this much, out of a cer- 
tain number of prophets and teachers who in consequence of “ the 
persecution,” had come to Antioch, two individuals were to be set 
apart to a certain “work.” If in the ordinary sense of the term, 
they were to be ordained to that work, reason and common sense 
would decide that they only who were competent to the duty could 
perform it, whether they were presbyters or a higher order in the 
ministry. They to whom the direction came, fulfilled the part as- 
signed them : but who they were is not recorded. If those named 
were the individuals designated to administer the rite, then have we 
the singular instance of three Prophets and Teachers ordaining to 
their office, two persons who were already invested with it. Observe 
the force and conclusive nature of the argument. “ Paul called to 
he an apostle of Jesus Christ, ”|| by him made a “ witness and a minis - 
ter” of the gospel, and straightway entering upon the duties of his 
calling and after devoting seventeen years to the ministry, is at 
length ordained, not a Congregational, but a Presbyterian minister. 
Paul and Barnabas, two Prophets and Teachers i. e. two Presbyteri- 
an ministers, are ordained by three “Prophets and Teachers” i. e. 
by three Presbyterian ministers, to be what they were already, Pres- 
byterian ministers : and this is produced as evidence, that “ the 
members” of “ the church” — “ the body of believers,” “ is invested 
with power,” to ordain “ their own ministers.” 

But it is needless to pursue these remarks any further. The ab- 
surdity is too glaring not to be detected at a glance. IF The most 

* Gal. i. 1,17. f Gal. i. 1. % Gal. i. 17. 

§ Gal. I. 12. Acts, xxvi. 16. Gal. i. 16. Acts,ix. 20, xxvi. 19. || I. Cor. i. I. 

IT Dr. Dwight himself, supposing the transaction to have been an ordination to 
he ministry, admits it to have been an ordination by Apostles ; possibly upon the 
trength of Gal. ii. 9. 


i 


37 


that can be made of the passage is, that Paul and Barnabas, two 
Prophets and Teachers, were, at the suggestion of the Holy Ghost, 
separated to a particular work, and with a view thereto recommen- 
ded to the grace of God — by whom the account does not say. 

The last instance introduced, as an “example of the apostolic 
churches,” which induced “the pilgrim fathers,” to “acknowledge 
no superior order in the ministry, is the ordination of Timothy. 
“ Though Timothy has the appellation of Bishop, yet he was or- 
dained by the Presbytery and not by any superior order. ” Now the 
veracious “ half century sermon” to the contrary notwithstanding, it 
is denied that “ Timothy has” in any part of “ the Bible, the appel 
lation of Bishop and just about as true as the declaration which 
affirms it, is the assertion that he was ordained “ not by any superior 
order,” He was ordained “ by prophecy,”* “ by the putting on 
of [St. Pauls] hands,”! “ with the laying on of the hands of the Pres- 
bytery.” He was ordained “ with the laying on of the hands of the Pres- 
bytery” it is true ; but in the anxiety to turn this passage to the account 
of Congregationalism, it is forgotten, that the very point to be proved 
ishere assumed. To establish the position, that Timothy held no high- 
er rank than that of a Presbyter, it is taken for granted that a body 
of Presbyters ordained him, which is the very circumstance requir- 
ing evidence. 

Of whom was “ the presbytery” composed ? will it be said of 
mere Elders according to the present acceptation ? we ask for the 
evidence. The term itself may signify any body of Elders, of what- 
ever description, whether ministers or laymen,]; and it is here to be 
interpreted by scripture practice. If indeed it can be made to appear 
that St. Paul’s was not “a superior order,” that the ordaining power 
was vested in ordinary presbyters, then it would be reasonable to in- 

* 1 Tim. iv. 14. f 2 Tim. i. 6. 

X The identical expression occurs Lukexxii.66, where it has reference to an “as- 
sembly of the people.” The phrase there rendered by our translators “ the Elders of 
the people” is according to the original “ the presbytery of the people ” — ro 
Guregi ov <rou Xaou. The same expression is also applied to the “ Chief Priests” by 
St. Paul himself in the original of the phrase “ the estate of the elders,” Acts, xxii. 5. 
compared with ix. 14. xxvi. 12. Even the essential principles of Congregationalism 
require the possibility that “ the Presbytery,” was composed of laymen . Else 
how could “ the church” presume to “ appoint a number of the brethren” — “ to 
lay on hands in ordination” — as has been generally admitted, much to the confusion 
of our author’s argument, when he correctly infers, that Timothy could not derive 
from his ordainers an authority superior to their own. 


38 


fe r that this prebytery was composed of such persons. That suppo- 
sition however, must be first established. It on the other hand, it 
should be ascertained that the power was limited to a “ superior or- 
der,” certainly it will not be difficult to conclude that “ the Presby- 
tery” was composed of persons of that order. But if in connexion 
with this passage, we refer to the further language of St. Paul, we 
shall find that at least one apostle was in the number, and so peculiar 
was his power, that he could say “ stir up the gift of God that is 
in thee by the putting on of my hands . ”* Here then we have direct 
evidence of the ordaining power being vested in an apostle, in that 
which is regarded as the highest of the three orders : that at least 
one such was in “ the Presbytery.” — Let the advocates of ministeri- 
al parity produce a single instance of a like power exercised by a 
mere Presbyter, or show one solitary reason for the supposition that 
one of that order was in the number of “ the Presbytery,” before 
they lay any claim to this passage as a testimony in their behalf. 

We have thus examined all the testimonies introduced from scrip- 
ture to sustain the congregational views of the Christian ministry ; 
and what is the clear result ? Why that, to say the least , they furnish 
nothing whatever decisive upon the subject. The appointment of 
the twelve apostles with equal powers does not decide it. The pro- 
miscuous use of the term, Bishops and Elders does not decide it. 
The separation of Paul and Barnabas to a particular work does not 
decide it, and if the ordination of Timothy by an Apostle, in connex- 
ion with others, termed a “ Presbytery,” decide any thing, it is not in 
favor of Congregationalism. If then there are no other passages re- 
ferring to the subject, and testimonies more explicit, it must remain un- 
decided, and the most that can be said, will be that the whole is a matter 
of mere conjecture. Let it be observed too, these passages, or rath- 
er the construction put upon them, forms the strength of the Congrega- 
tional cause. Upon them it is chiefly rested, not only in the dis- 
course under consideration but by all its advocates. Consequently, 
as these testimonies are de ficient, or weak or obscure, must the 
cause itself be deficient, or weak, or obscure. And if in order to sus- 
tain that cause, a construction is forced upon these indecisive passa- 
ges at variance with other explicit declarations of scripture, then is 
that cause maintained in opposition to the scripture. Then is it to be 
numbered among the “ subsequent establishments” which are “ of no 
weight and of no authority against the Bible.” 

§ 2. Tim. i. 6 


CONSTITUTION AND MINISTRY 


OF THE 




Our attention having been directed to those passages of scripture 
upon which are grounded the claims of the Congregational Society, 
to Divine authority in regard to its constitution and ministry, a brief, 
but, as it is trusted, a candid consideration of the full force of the 
evidences adduced, has led to the conclusion that they furnish, no 
such example as the founders and advocates of the “ Congregational 
order,” “ supposed they had for their direction.” As regards the 
government and discipline of that Society, so far are these from be- 
ing sustained by scripture example, that even the very passages re- 
ferred to, in their support, go directly to sanction that mode of gov- 
ernment and discipline in opposition to which they are established. 
The authority conferred upon the Apostles, by our Lord himself, il- 
lustrated by that exercised over the churches by St. Paul, especial, 
ly in the instance of the Corinthian church, not only disproves the 
assertion, so positively uttered, that “ the whole power was in the 
Church ;” but establishes beyond refutation, the pre-eminent powers 
of the ministry. Without advancing any further testimonies then, 
the very proofs upon which our assailants rest their cause decide 
against them. As respects the ministry, it is worthy of remark, that 
while several passages which do furnish positive evidence on the 
subject are kept out of view, others are introduced which either have 
no reference to the matter of ordination, or determine nothing in fa- 
vor of the cause for which an appeal is made to them, evidently re- 
quiring illustration from other instances of primitive practice. The 
equality of the twelve Apostles, in no way affects the existence of 
inferior orders. That Bishops and Elders were names appropria- 
ted to individuals of the same order, does not disallow the existence 


40 


of a higher order, termed Apostles. That Paul and Barnabas, men 
possessing apostolic authority, were recommended to the grace of 
God at Antioch, for aught that we are told, by other Apostles, fur- 
nishes nothing whatever, illustrative of the primitive power of ordi- 
nation ; nor yet is the matter at issue, determined by the ordination 
of Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus, by the hands of St. Paul, with the 
concurrence of a Presbytery, composed of we know not whom, it 
might have been Apostles. Of all these circumstances, and they 
are the strength of our opponent’s cause, there is not that single one 
which, in any respect, favors them. If then, the portions of Scrip- 
ture, which have been advanced upon the subject of the ministry 
are all that have a bearing upon the subject — if there be nothing fur- 
ther to enable us to understand the truth of the matter, then so far as 
Scripture is concerned, the. case is undecided — it is a mere matter of 
conjecture, and mankind are left at liberty to suppose Presbyterian- 
ism or even Episcopacy the primitive institution. But to 
whichever side the bias of his mind may determine any man or 
men, they have thus far, no Scripture to justify or sustain them in the 
conclusion ; this is the Church which Christ himself established — 
this is “ the purest sample of the primitive Church, now in the world 
that is “ opposition to the finger of God” that is “ hostility to the 
Divine influence that is “an effort of the adversary to raise a storm;” 
and if the government and discipline of a church affect its integ- 
rity, we do not hesitate to leave it to our assailants to deter- 
mine, if they will render their verdict according to the evidences of 
Scripture, which is the purest sample , and which the opposition , the 
hostility , the effort of the adversary . But, thank God, we are not left 
destitute of sufficient light to guide the willing mind in an unerring 
way — we are furnished with some evident marks to lead us to the 
{old of the Redeemer — to assure us whether or not, we are continu- 
ing in the Apostle’s fellowship, in communion with the ministry of 
Christ’s appointment — to enable us to judge whether we are receivj 
ing or despising the authorised “ ambassadors for Christ” — to receive 
whom we are taught upon high authority is to receive Christ Jesus 
himself — to despise whom, is, upon no less authority, to despise the 
blessed Redeemer, “who is God over all.” From the belief an- 
nounced, with such an air of confidence, “that Jesus Christ estab- 
lished a church,” in which “the full and ultimate power is given to 
the body of believers,” in which “ the power of government is placed 
entirely in the members” — in which “ the power of discipline, the 




41 


whole power,” is placed “in the Church” — in which too, there was 
“ no superior order in the ministry” — we appeal to the word of God, 
in support of the explicit declarations, that in the Church of Christ 
as originally constituted, the power of government and discipline was 
vested in the ministry, while the supreme authority and power to or- 
dain, was vested in a superior order of that ministry, exclusively of 
other orders. As our assailant appears not unwilling to rest the merits 
of the case, upon the example which Scripture furnishes, without re- 
quiring any positive precept to enforce conformity, the necessity is 
spared of showing, that whatever Scripture assures us was authorised 
by Christ, or his inspired apostles, is the only safe course for us to 
pursue ; and that what we there find to have been dictated by the 
spirit of God, must have been pleasing to him, and is therefore enfor- 
ced upon the observance of every one, who would do the will of his 
Creator, by the most solemn and binding sanctions.* 

But notwithstanding the imposing authority which has set the seal 
of its worthlessness upon the “ testimony of the fathers” — notwith- 
standing that the wisdom and erudition of the Pastor and people “ of 
the First Ecclesiastical Society of Saybrook,” have decided against 
the learned and pious among mankind — notwithstanding it may ap- 
pear like presumption in him to pay so little regard to the decisions of 
an authority so overwhelming — the writer cannot resist the strong 
disposition which he feels, to indulge a little liberty of judgment — 
to pay a little deference to the testimonies of men, who readily gave 
their lives in attestation of the truths they record — to attach some 
weight to their evidence, who did not hesitate, at the sacrifice of ev- 
ery earthly consideration, to transmit the institutions of the gospel 
pure as they had received them, down to those who can repay their 
zeal and fidelity with contumely and contempt. He cannot deny 
himself the privilege of a direct appeal to their testimony, if it be on- 
ly to show what reliance is to be placed upon the assertions of one 
who ranks Pastor of a Church which is not only a “great, patron of free 
researches into truth ,” but a “great advocate for a pious, learned ! and 
evangelical ministry ” / / Nor, let it be understood, do the advocates of 
Episcopacy rest upon the “testimony of the Fathers,” to give to it 
divine authority. They appeal to that testimony as justifying their 

<< 'Whatever Church officers the scriptures have established as standing offi- 
cers, are appointed by God himself. The church therefore, is bound to receive 
them as having been thus appointed, and to take effectual care that they always 
€x i s t. ’’—Dwight’s Theological Serm. cl. 


6 


42 


ini erp relation of Scripture upon the subject. They learn from that 
testimony, credible as any uninspired record under heaven* 
not merely what were the opinions of the writers, but what were 
the existing facts which they record, and finding among these the 
universal establishment of Episcopacy, or three orders in the ministry, 
during the very earliest period, down to which ecclesiastical history 
extends, they argue indeed, the incredibility of the supposition, that 
any other organization could have given way to it without some re- 
cord of a change so great; they can scarcely believe that an institu- 
tion, bearing the solemn sanction of divine origin and appointment, 
could have been superseded throughout the wide bounds of the 
Christian world, and yet no memorial remain of the fact. Still this 
is not the ground on which they rest. They are as prompt as any 
to admit, “ that all subsequent opinions and establishments are of no 
weight, and of no authority, against the Bible yet it would be mad- 
ness to reject the light of such evidence, in the interpretation of 
Scripture ; and when they find the obvious sense of Scripture coin- 
ciding with history, they avail themselves of both to justify their con- 
clusions. But in this matter they yield not half the submission to 
“the testimony of the Fathers,” which others do in respect to in- 
fant baptism, and the Lord’s day, and the canon of Scripture. 

Of Ignatius, we are told, that the seven Epistles, ascribed to him 
Sind usually termed genuine, “ are considered as dubious in many 
points,” and that, “ even if they were all true, his testimony would 
not favor the idea of a diocesan Bishop.” As to the dubious char- 
acter of these epistles, it will suffice to quote the language of the 
very Dr. Miller, whose attempt to discredit them, has met with won- 
drous acceptance among those who found it might serve their turn. 
He is compelled to admit, that “the great body of learned men consider 
the smaller Epistles of Ignatius as, in the main, the real works of the 
writer whose name they bear.” But “his testimony does not favor the 
idea of a diocesan Bishop — for he uniformly addresses the Bishop 
and Presbyters of a single Church ; and never speaks of a Bishop 
whose authority was over many churches.” If, by this latter de- 
claration, it be meant that the jurisdiction of a single Bishop was re- 
stricted to the church of a single district, comprising several congre- 
gations, the declaration is unquestionably true — no one can dispute 
it. It is precisely what Episcopalians maintain. If it mean, that 
his jurisdiction was limited to a single Congregation, still the fact 
would little accord with the Congregational order. A Bishop, Pres- 


43 


byters, and Deacons are three orders, whether associated with many 
congregations, or a single one. But that Ignatius “ uniformly ad- 
dresses the Bishop and Presbyters of a single Congregation,” is an 
assertion entirely destitute of foundation. He uniformly addresses 
no Bishop or Presbyter whatever. With the exception of that to Pol- 
ycar'p, all his genuine epistles are addressed to the churches, respect- 
ively named in them. When he speaks in them moreovetr, of heir 
Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, they furnish not a particle of evi- 
dence, that these officers were limited to a single Congregation. So 
much for assertion. That the Bishops he mentions, were not Dioce- 
san Bishops ; that they were restricted to a single congregation, is 
rendered highly improbable by the fact, that he uniformly enumer- 
ates the Presbyters and Deacons in connexion with and as being sub- 
ject to one single Bishop. One of his epistles likewise is addressed 
to the Church at Ephesus — the very Church which in St. Paul’s 
time had its number of Presbyters whom he called together at Mile- 
tus — that Church in which Timothy had been left with power and 
authority, “ to charge some” with respect to the doctrines which 
they were to teach, as distinct from others — to ordain, sit in judg- 
ment upon, and rebuke an Elder. In that very Church, subject 
to their Apostle Timothy, were several “ elders,”* or as they were 
then termed, Bishops. This the author of the “Retrospect” himself, 
maintains. Paul says he “ writes (?) to the Elders of Ephesus, and 
addresses them as Bishops, and each of these Bishops, he informs us, 
was “the senior” among “several elders,” who were frequently found 
in the primitive Church ; as many Bishops, then as there were, so many 
Churches there were. Consequently, at Ephesus there were several 
Churches in the time of St. Paul and Timothy. Therefore, unless it can 
be shown that in a very short period, Christianity was on the decline, 
in a church too addressed as “deservedly happy,” and “blessed 
through the greatness and fulness of God,” Onesimus, Bishop of 
Ephesus, must have been Bishop of more than a single congrega- 
tion. The same remarks will apply to the Church at Antioch upon 
the admission of the “ Retrospect,” that there were there “ several 
Bishops” or senior Elders. 

Ignatius was Bishop of that same Antioch in Syria, yet he speaks of 
his destitute Church as the “ Church of Syria.”! He was therefore 


* 1 Tiro, v. 17, 20 


f Epistle to Romans. 


44 


" Bishop of Syria,”* as he terms himself, of that whole region thro* 
which St. Paul went “ confirming the Churches ”] The internal ev- 
idence of the Epistles in connexion with the record of scripture, then 
fully substantiates the position that the Bishop of whom Ignatius 
speaks was not “ the Bishop of a single Church,” that he does “speak 
of a Bishop whose authority was over many [particular] Churches.” 
This application of the term is abundantly manifest, wit hout appealing 
to the overwhelming testimonies of subsequent writers who univer- 
sally confirm it. 

Let us now see, how far “ the example of the Apostolic Churches” 
which Ignatius addresses, furnished “ our Fathers” reason for 
supposing “ they had [that] for their direction,” when “ they ac- 
knowledged no superior order in the ministry,” and in the government 
and discipline of the church “ supposed the power to be placed en- 
tirely in the members.” 

In his Epistle to the Ephesians, Ignatius expressly declares, “ The 
Bishops appointed unto the utmost bounds of the earth, are sent by 
the will of Jesus Christ.” “ It is therefore fitting that you should by 
all means, glorify Jesus Christ who hath glorified you — that being 
subject to your Bishop, and the Presbytery ye may be wholly and 
thoroughly sanctified.” — “ Wherefore, it will become you to run to- 
gether according to the will of your Bishop.” — “ Let us take heed 
that we do not set ourselves against the Bishop, that we may be 
subject to God-” — “ Obeying your Bishop and the Presbytery with 
an entire affection.” 

In his Epistle to the Magnesians he writes, “It will become you not 
to use your Bishop too familiarly upon the account of his youth, but 
to yield all reverence to him according to the power of God the Fa- 
ther — as also I perceive that your holy Presbyters do.” “ I can never 
think, that such as call their governor Bishop,* but do all things with- 
out him, have a good conscience, seeing they are not gathered to- 
gether thoroughly according to God’s commandment.” — “ But be ye 
united to your Bishop” — “ neither do ye any thing without your Bish- 
op and Presbyters.” 

In his Epistle to the Philadelphians, he affirms, “I cried whilst I was 
among you ; I spake with a loud voice ; attend to the Bishop and to the 
Presbytery, and to the Deacons.”— “ The spirit spake, saying, on this 
wise: do nothing without the Bishop”— “ For as many as are of God, 


Epistle to the Romans. 


t Acts xv. 41. 


45 


and of Jesus Christ, are also with their Bishop” — “There is one Bish- 
op, together with his Presbytery and the Deacons my fellow-ser- 
vants.” 

The Smyrneans he admonishes, “ See that ye all follow your 
Bishop as Jesus Christ, the Father; and the Presbytery as the 
Apostles, and reverence the Deacons as the command of God. Let 
no man do any thing of what belongs to the Church separately from 
the Bishop, Let that eueharist be looked upon as well established 
which is either offered by the Bishop, or by him to whom the Bishop 
has given his consent.” — “ It is a good thing to have regard both to 
God and to the Bishop ; he that honors the Bishop, shall be honored 
of God — but he that does any thing without his knowledge, ministers 
unto the Devil.” — “ I salute your very worthy Bishop, and your ven- 
erable Presbytery, and your Deacons my fellow servants.” 

Through “ Polycarp, Bishop of the Church which is at Smyrna,” 
he writes to the members of that Church, “ Hearken unto the Bishop, 
that God may also hearken unto you. My soul be security for 
them that submit to their Bishop, with their Presbyters and Deacons, 
and may my portion be together with theirs in God.” 

“ The Church which is at Tralles,” he salutes as “ continuing in 
the Apostolical character” — “ For whereas,” adds he, “ ye are sub- 
ject to your Bishop as to Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not af- 
ter the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ. It is there- 
fore necessary that as ye do so, without your Bishop you should do no- 
thing ; also be ye subject to your Presbyters as to the Apostles of 
Jesus Christ — The Deacons also, as being the ministers of the mys- 
teries of Jesus Christ, must by all means please all — For they are 
not the ministers of meat and drink, but of the Church of God.” — 
“ Being subject to your Bishop as to the command of God ; and so 
likewise to the Presbytery.” “ It becomes every one of you, espe- 
cially the Presbyters, to refresh the Bishop, to the honor of the Fath- 
er, of Jesus Christ, and of the Apostles.” — “ Guard yourselves against 
such persons [the heretics,] and that you will do, if you are not puff- 
ed up, but continue inseparable from Jesus Christ, our God, and from 
your Bishop, and from the commands of the Apostles. He that is 
within the altar is pure : but he that is without, that is, that does any- 
thing without the Bishop, and Presbyters and Deacons, is not pure 
in his conscience” — “ without these, the Bishops, Presbyters and 
Deacons, there is no church.” 

Now where is the example of these Apostolic Churches which 


4 iy 


directs to the acknowledgment of no superior order in the ministry ; 
where the slightest ground for the supposition that in the government 
and discipline, the power was placed entirely in the members of the 
Church. The Epistles of Ignatius record the fact, that in 
the Apostolic Churches to which he wrote, there were in his 
day existing, upon the firm persuasion of their divine appointment 
and authority, three orders of ministers, to the highest of which be- 
longed the supreme power ; and Ignatius, be it remembered, lived in 
the age of the Apostles. He undoubtedly must have been acquaint- 
ed with the state of the Church, under their immediate direction — he 
must have known, if any man could know, what the divine institution 
authorized; what the practice of inspired men sanctioned. And is 
it credible, that an individual who readily surrendered his life in at- 
testation of what he declared, would wilfully misrepresent, or that 
with the advantages and opportunities which he possessed, he could be 
ignorant of the circumstances of the Church, in the times of the Apos- 
tles ? Could he possibly have ascribed that importance, which he 
manifestly does ascribe, to the recognition of three orders in the 
Christian ministry, when he knew, as he must have known had it 
been the fact, that these were an innovation upon the ordinance 
of Christ and his spirit ? The passages quoted too, were written 
by Ignatius while on a journey from Antioch to Rome, under 
the conduct of the Roman soldiery and the sentence of the Em- 
peror, to be thrown to the wild beasts and destroyed — and could 
he with the prospect of death before him, and in which he gloried 
for the truth’s sake, could he (to repeat the question,) thus write 
of these orders, as the appointment of God, and essential to the 
very being of his church, while at the same time he knew, as he 
must have known, were it the fact, that no such distinction ex- 
isted or was authorised in the divinely constituted Church and 
Ministry ? It is totally incredible. Ignatius, the companion of 
Apostles and Martyrs, himself a Martyr, must have known and must 
have represented the truth. He could not be mistaken, he could 
not misrepresent. His testimony is to be believed. 

As for “Polycarp of Smyrna,” what though he “ does not mention 
the name of Bishop is that evidence that there was no such of- 
fice in the primitive Church ? The holy martyr, Ignatius, the con- 
temporary of Polycarp, does most unequivocally mention the name 
and assert the superior character of the Bishop, in connexion with 
the subordinate ministry ; and will any one pretend that the silence 


47 


©f one, is stronger testimony than the explicit declarations of anoth’ 
^r. Besides, our erudite assailant had just informed us, that “ there 
were several Bishops,” perhaps in the Church at Philippi, to which 
Polycarp’s Epistle was addressed, as there were “ at Ephesus and 
at Antioch.” To be sure, he considers them upon an equality 
with presbyters. Still their rank does not affect the question of 
their existence, and Polycarp’s neglect to “ mention the name Bish. 
op,” would as much decide against the existence of the one acknowl- 
edged order called by that name, or of the senior order whom it is suppo- 
sed to have designated, as it would against that of the superior order. 
If indeed Bishops were of the more ordinary grade of ministers, the 
silence respecting them would be much more unaccountable, than it 
is upon the reasonable supposition, that at the time of their being 
written to, the Church was destitute of a Bishop, in the higher sense 
of the term. And what is there remarkable, that in an Epistle, but 
about half the length of an ordinary sermon, the writer does not in- 
troduce every circumstance which the history of the Church might 
call up. Noris it true, as asserted, that Polycarp “ confines himself to 
the term Presbyter.” He speaks of “the Deacons as the ministers 
of God in Christ,” and directs the Philippians to be “ subject to the 
Priests and Deacons, as unto God and Christ.” His Epistle moreo- 
ver is addressed to the Church to which he wrote, in the name of 
“ Poly carp, and the Presbyters that are with him not the other 
Presbyters, remark, as he would have said, were he himself one of the 
order, but “Polycarp, and the Presbyters.” But however some may 
choose to interpret his sentiments, he fully subscribes to what Igna- 
natius had enjoined, saying of “ the Epistles of Ignatius which he 
wrote unto us, together with what others of his have come to our 
hands,” by which the Philippians might “ be greatly profited,” that 
“they treat of faith and patience, and of all things that pertain to 
edification in the Lord Jesus.” 

It is further asserted, that “Clement of Rome never speaks of three 
orders.” But from assertion, let us appeal to fact. Admonishing 
the Corinthians how it “ behoves them to take care they do all 
things in order, whatsoever our Lord has commanded us to do,” 
“that God has ordained by his supreme will and authority, by what 
persons their offerings and service to God are to be performed,” he 
instructs them that “care must be had of the persons that minister unto 
him.” “ For,*’ adds he, “ the Chief Priest has his proper services, 
and to the Priests their proper place is appointed ! and to the Levites 


48 


appertain their proper ministries ; and theLayman is confined within 
the bounds of what is commanded to Laymen.” — “ Let every one of 
you therefore, brethren, bless God in his proper station — not exceed- 
ing the rule of his service that is appointed to him.” Now not to in- 
sist that writing to men over whom the Jewish ministry was not then 
exercised, the writer applies terms derived from it, to the different 
orders of the Christian ministry : the simple question is asked, what 
propriety could there be, in illustrating the Christian’s duty of subor- 
dination, by such reference ; when no parallel existed between the 
Jewish and Christian ministry, in respect to a diversity of orders ? 
Again he says “ the Apostles having received their command, being 
orderly sent by Christ, and preaching through countries and cities, 
they appointed the first fruits of their conversion, to be Bishops and 
Ministers over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved 
them by the spirit. Nor was this any new thing, seeing that long be- 
fore it was written concerning Bishops and Deacons, “ I will ap- 
point their overseers in righteousness, and their ministers in faith.”* 
And what wonder, if they to whom such a work was committed by 
God in Christ, established such officers as we before mentioned. 
Here then we have, first Apostles, secondly Bishops, thirdly Dea- 
cons ; the Apostles orderly sent by Christ and establishing Bishops 
or overseers, and Ministers, or Deacons over the believers — the 
Apostles establishing these as distinct from themselves. The re- 
mark of St. Clement, may conclude his testimony, that “ the Apos- 
tles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there should contentions 
arise upon the account of the ministry, and therefore they appointed 
persons as we have before said, and then gave direction how, when 
they should die, other chosen and approved men should succeed 
in the ministry.” The testimony of the early Fathers then, fur- 
nishes the most satisfactory evidences of the belief and practice of 
their day, and it is a question worthy of some consideration, whether 
with their peculiar advantages and opportunities, their simple belief 
is not entitled to as much credit, as the opinions of any men of mod- 
ern times : whether the institutions of the Church in the very age of 
the Apostles, when these writers lived, the facts they record, are 
not to be regarded as of Apostolic, that is, of Divine authority ; and 
whether the passages of scripture which have already been noticed, 
illustrated by the ascertained practice of the age, when they were 


A version of Isaiah, lx. 17. 


49 


written, would not conclusively establish the divine appointment 
of three orders in the ministry, to the first of which was entrusted the su • 
preme authority in the government and discipline of the Church. 

But we come now in opposition to the suppositions and belief \ ad- 
vanced with such an appearance of suspicion, to show from the pos- 
itive declarations of the scriptures themselves, that there was a “ su- 
perior order in the ministry,” — that of three orders the highest only 
was invested with the right of ordination — that to them belonged the 
general superintendence of the Churches and the chief exercise of dis- 
cipline, and that Presbyters did not possess this right, and these pow- 
ers. It matters not, by what names the several orders were distin- 
guished ; the question is, did these orders exist and in the nature of 
them is there aught, requiring their perpetuity ? The existence of 
two orders is virtually admitted, although to preserve the al- 
leged equality in the ministry, there is a distinction made as if 
there were but one order in the ministry , while in the 
church there were two offices under which the inferior order in 
the ministry is ranked. That there was such an order in the Church 
as that designated by the several names, Bishops, Presbyters, and 
Elders is universally agreed. That there was a distinct class of 
persons called Deacons none deny, but by some their station is denom- 
inated an office in the church, not an order in the ministry. Upon what 
grounds the distinction ismade,it is difficult to imagine. Whatever some 
who, at the present day assume the name, may esteem the duties of the 
office, the primitive Deacon was commissioned to preach and to bap- 
tize as we find Philip engaged in doing.* Hence we infer that his was 
an order in the ministry ; and that it is not only the right, but the 
solemn duty of all who hold that sacred office, to preach and bap- 
tise likewise. But this order was not authorised to administer con- 
firmation ; for we find that when through the preaching of Philip, 
« Samaria had received the word of God,” Peter and John were sent 
thither, who “ laid their hands on them that were baptized, in the 
name of the Lord Jesus, ”t thus performing a rite, to which Philip 
was incompetent. Neither did this order in any case ordain, or ex- 
ercise jurisdiction. Nor yet did the Presbyters either confirm, or- 
dain or exercise the highest jurisdiction. 

But there was a superior order which was invested with this three- 
fold auihority. Such order we find in those who had the appella- 


Acts viii. 5, 12, 35, 38, 40, 


f Acts viii. 14, 16, 17, 


50 


on of Apostles, and of these were “ the eleven,”* Matthias, j* Barna- 
bas, Paul, | Sylvanus or Silas, Timothy, § “ James the Lord’s bro- 
ther, ”|| Epaphroditus,H Andronicus and Junia,** and others de- 
nominated “the Apostles of the Churches. ”tt That this was an or- 
der of men exercising authority over the Churches, in government and 
discipline, evidence the most conclusive has been already furnish- 
ed, JJ and more will presently be added. That they possessed the 
exclusive right of confirmation, has also been shown. That to them 
and not to Presbyters, belonged the authority to ordain, can be clearly 
established. It is evident from the frequent enumeration of the sev- 
ral classes, as distinct orders, that the Apostles were distinct from 
the Presbyters or Elders. Oftentimes there is mention made of “Apos- 
tles and Elders”§§ of “Apostles and Elders and brethren. ”|1|| The 
enumeration of “ Bishops and Deacons, ’’HIT is allowed to be suffi- 
cient evidence of their distinction. “ Apostles and Brethren”*** 
undeniably indicate “ two grades of distinction.” Therefore we con- 
clude that Apostles and Elders were distinct also. It is unneces^ 
sary to enter into any argument to prove that the Apostles were pre- 
eminent in other respects than on account of the extraordinary pow- 
ers with which they were invested, or of their peculiar duties. The 
whole reasoning of our opponent is conducted upon the ground that 
he Apostles were “ of the same standing and of equal authority,” 
with all Christian ministers ; else it might be shown that others exer- 
cised extraordinary gifts, and we have seen that others who were not 
of the chosen twelve, were named Apostles. It is sufficient that the 
Apostles and Elders were two distinct orders. Were they in all re- 
spects upon an equality? then have we two classes in the ministry, 
divinely established, with nothing but a name to distinguish them, and 
no reason for their distinction. We leave the difficulty to be solved 
by those who contrive it ; and to aid them in the solution, affirm that 
while presbyters are every where seen to be subject to the Apostles, 
he Apostles are never found subject to any Presbyter whatever, — 
The apostles had authority to ordain. They ordained Matthias to 

* Acts i. 26. f Acts i. 25, 26. J Acts xiv. 4, 14. 1 Cor. ix. 6. compared with ve. 5. 

§ Compare 1 Thes i. 1. with ii. 6. 

|| Gal. i. 19. Matt. xiii. 55, compared with John vii. 5, proves that the brother 
of our Lord was distinct from the Apostles of that name ; of whom one was the 
son of Zebedee and the other of Alpheus. Matt. x. 2, 3, iv. 21. 

H axocoXov. Phil. ii. 25. ** Rom. xvi. 7. 

tt axogoXoi sxx\y}Uiuv 2 Cor. viii. 23. ££ See page 19 — 23. 

Acts xv. 2, 6, 22. xvi. 4. |||| Acts xv. 23. HIT Phil. i. 1. *** Acts xi. 1- 


51 

ail the place of Judas in the number of the apostles.* They ordain- 
ed the seven Deacons.f Paul and Barnabas, two of the apostolic 
order, as they travelled through the countries to which they had been 
sent, “ ordained them elders in every Church. ”J Timothy was or- 
dained to the office and invested with the powers of an Apostle or 
Bishop— with “ the gift of God” — “ fythe putting on” of St. Paul’s 
hands in connexion with the presbytery, § whatever this name may 
import. The Apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Apostle Timothy, most 
clearly and explicitly recognizes, at the same time, his superior authori - 
ty in the government and discipline of the Church, his superiority and 
power over the presbyters, and his exclusive right to ordain. Timo- 
thy had been left by St. Paul at Ephesus, to exercise over the Church 
there and the elders who belonged to it, the powers peculiar to his 
order.H The aged Apostle writes to his “dearly beloved son in the 
faith,” to instruct him how he ought to behave himself in the — 
Church of the living. God.”1T He prescribes to him the qualifica- 
cations necessary for those persons who were to be ordained presby- 
ters and deacons,** and solemnly charges Timothy as a responsible 
person, impartially to observe the directions given to him.tt These 
clearly manifest, that he singly possessed authority , to charge some res- 
pecting the doctrines they were to teach to receive an accusation 
against an elder ;§§ to rebuke them that sinned ;|||| to honor those that 
rule well ;1MT to lay hands on such as were to be ordained ;*** and to 
commit the things which he had heard, to faithful men, who should teach 
others also.JJJ So Titus was left in Crete, with the express purpose 
that he should “ set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain 
elders in every city ;”§§§ that he should rebuke sharply, and with 
all authority ;||i||| that he should admonish or reject the heretic. 1HI1T 
Will it be said that Timothy and Titus were mere Congregational 
ministers, “ of the same standing and of equal authority” with “ the 


* Compare Acts i. 26, with verse 22. t Acts vi. 6. 

t Acts xiv. 23. § 2 Tim. i. 6. 1 Tim. iv. 14. . 

Ii 1 Tim. i. 3. HI Tim. i. 2. 2 Tim. i. 2. 1 Tim. iii. 14. 15. 

** 1 Tim iii. jf 1 Tim. v. 21, vi. 13, 14. Jt 1 Tim. i. 3. 

§§ 1 Tim. v. 19 HII 1 Tim. v. 20. HIT 1 Tim. v 17. *** 1 Tim. v. 22, 

Hi 2 Tim. ii. 2. §§§ Titus i. 5. In his commentary upon this place, Calvin 

himself, remarks : “ here we learn that there was not any equality among the min- 
hters of the Church, but that one was placed over the rest in authority and 
counsel.” 

IIIIH Titus i. 13. ii. 15. 


m Titus iii. 10. 


52 


teachers in the Church.” And does Congregationalism then, permit 
a single minister to exercise such offices in different cities and inde- 
pendent churches ? or is any thing like the foregoing, recorded in 
respect to presbyters? Were they authorised to receive an accusa- 
tion against those grievous wolves, which should arise, speaking per- 
verse things ? Had they the power to rebuke them, to charge them 
what doctrines they were to teach — when occasion required it? If 
they had, why send Timothy to attend to all these things in a Church 
which numbered its Bishops or elders ? Nor is there a shadow of 
evidence that Elders or Presbyters ever ordained. The testimonies 
produced in support of such a supposition, as has already been seen, 
furnish it not the slightest authority ; and not a single instance can 
be adduce 1 from Scripture to justify it. That they exercised a de- 
gree of authority in government and discipline, is undeniable — but 
never over the ministry. Their authority was confined to their res- 
pective flocks — while they themselves were subject to the higher or- 
der. The passages which prove the superiority of this order, of 
course, establish the inferior rank of the other. To learn the Scrip- 
tural powers of a presbyter, we may refer among other instances, to 
the charge delivered by St. Paul to the elders of Ephesus, assembled 
at Miletus. * There the Apostle directs them to “ take heed” unto 
themselves — to take heed unto “ all the flock over which the Holy 
Ghost had made [them] overseers” — as shepherds “ to feed the 
Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” — to 
“watch” against the “grievous wolves” which should enter in 
among them ; against those who should arise from among themselves, 
“speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Here 
we find no reference whatever, to their powers of ordination ; no re- 
cognition whatever of their authority, to exercise discipline over oth- 
ers in the ministry, although an occasion is stated which would loud- 
ly call for it, if they indeed, possessed the authority. But, there is 
not the most remote intimation, of their holding any such powers as 
were indisputably exercised by the Apostles, and were manifestly 
recognized in Timothy and Titus. In perfect consistency with this 
view, we find St. Paul giving to Timothy directions respecting the 
qualifications of a Bishop or Presbyter, whose duty is represented to 
be, that he “take care of the Church of God.”t St. Peter, like- 
wise exhorts the elders to “ feed the flock of God,” “ taking the over- 


Acts xx. 23—35. 


f 1 Tim iii. 5 


53 


sight thereof,”* but in neither case do we hear a syllable about ordi- 
nation, or “equal standing and authority.” In the Church of Ephe- 
sus, then, we find most assuredly three distinct orders in the ministry. 
An Apostle, Timothy, possessing the exclusive power to ordain, to 
receive an accusation against, to sit in judgment, and pronounce 
sentence upon a Presbyter. Presbyters or Bishops, subject to him 
in the exercise of such powers, and Deacons, capable of promotion 
to a higher degree upon using their office well. How utterly vain 
the al tempt to find in Congregationalism the traces of a pure sam- 
ple of such a Church. t 

But suppose, notwithtanding all the evidences to the contrary, 
that under the divine appointment, there existed but a single order in 
the ministry ; that Christ, and under the inspiration of the spirit, his 
Apostles, recognized but one order, possessed of equal power ; that 
to them, and to them alone, belonged the power of ordination, 
where in such case, are we now to look for that order ? From the ear- 

* 1 Peter v. 2. 

f Indeed, so positive and so conclusive are the evidences of a “ superior order in 
the ministry,” in the Apostolic Church, that the fact is generally conceded. Such 
wild assertions, as deny to the Apostles any “ power over the Churches,” or limit 
theirs to “ the equal authority of the teachers in the Church, a Presbytery of 
elders,” are rarely to be met with. But to obviate the force of the argument, in behalf 
of Episcopacy, it is usual to contend that theirs were extraordinary powers, and 
that the office of the Apostles was to terminate with their decease. As this how 
ever is not the ground assumed in the “ halfcentury sermon,” it is sufficient to re- 
mark, that the supposition of the temporary nature of the Apostolic office, is not 
sustained by any scripture intimation, and is contrary to facts. It has never yet 
ceased. The testimony of the Fathers, abundantly proves, that under the name 
Bishops, the Apostles had successors to themselves, in all the functions essential to the 
well being of the Church. Apostles, Presbyters, and Deacons were appointed in the 
Church under the authority of divine direction. They who presume to reject them 
from the Church, should be well persuaded of their right so to do. What was the 
divine intention in regard to the perpetuity of the ministry, under its primitive or- 
ganization, if we are permitted to appeal to facts, facts will show. If Bishops actu- 
ally succeed to the Apostles, we may presume it was intended they should so suc- 
ceed. How is the fact to be determined? from scripture? must we look to the 
writings of the Apostles to learn what occurred after their departure? No, we must 
appeal to the testimony of the Fathers, of Apostolic men, who knew the mind 
and acted under the immediate direction of those inspired men. If all Scripture were 
doubtful on this point, unquestionably the records of history would be admitted in 
illustration. Especially then, when we find a ministry in several orders, existing 
under divine appointment, and in the writings of the Fathers evidences of a cor- 
responding diversity of orders, still continued, and spreading with the growth of 
the Church, the inference is certainly just, that that institution was designed to be 
permanent. 


54 


best period of its history, down to the sixteenth century, we observe three 
orders of ministers universally existing in the Christian Church — al- 
ways and everywhere. Two of these therefore, must be an innovation 
upon the divine appointment. If Christ has instituted a single order of 
ministers, with equal powers, and we find three orders in existence, with 
unequal powers, then two of these orders are exercising a ministry 
which does not belong to them. And which are these two ? Deacons 
cannot be of the original single appointment, nor yet Presbyters. 
Both Presbyters and Deacons want the authority to ordain, so essen- 
tial to the perpetuity of the Christian ministry, which is designed to 
continue “ even to the end of the world.” That order which com- 
bines all the powers of every existing grade of the Christian minis- 
try, including the power of ordination, must of course be essential. 
If then, one order alone is to be admitted, that is the only one which 
can be essential to the Christian Church. In such case, Presbyters 
and Deacons, i. e. they who hold the limited offices and powers 
exercised by these, are no ministers of Christ. The order of Bish- 
ops is the only one of divine institution, and the rest of consequence 
are intruders into the ministry. If but a single order can claim the 
authority of divine institution, it must be that which is commissioned 
to preach, to administer the sacraments, and to ordain. Any order 
which does not possess these powers, if a single order were consti- 
tuted, must be an innovation. Hence upon the supposition, those 
termed Bishops are the only authorized ministers of Christ, and all 
Presbyters are intruders into the hallowed office. Let Congregation- 
alists settle the difficulty. 

But after all, it may be asked, what possible interest can the Con- 
gregational cause possess, in the question between the authority of a 
Presbytery and that of a Bishop, in the matter of ordination ? Sup- 
pose every claim of the latter to be decidedly and completely demol- 
ished, and every pretension of the former, as entirely and firmly es- 
tablished, in what single respect is Congregationalism therefore the 
better ? Suppose that Apostles, Presbyters, and Deacons were all 
equal in the Church, and their successors in the ministry possessed 
the full authority of those we deem the highest order. Suppose too, 
in direct opposition to the word of God, that Timothy and Titus were 
not of an order of men, having exclusively the power not only to 
sit in judgment upon, and to rebuke, but also to ordain Presbyters. 
What advantage can derive to Congregationalism from such admis- 
sions ? It is as far remote from Scripture authority, upon the acknowl. 


55 




edgment of the Presbyterian claim, as upon that of tho divine right 
of Episcopacy itself. There is between the Congregationalist and 
the consistent Presbyterian, an essential distinction, as wide as that 
which places the former in opposition to Episcopacy, and still wider 
than that which separates the two latter. The principles of the Pres- 
byterian and Episcopalian both assert the divine institution of the 
ministry, i. e. of an order of men “ to preach the word, administer 
the sacraments, dispense discipline — and to commit these powers to 
other faithful men.”* Both recognize the necessity of an authority 
derived in direct succession from Christ, the Head of the Church, 
and source of all power therein. Both “ maintain that none are reg- 
. ularly invested with the ministerial character, or can with propriety 
be recognized in this character, but those who have been set apart 
to the office, by persons lawfully clothed with the power of ordain- 
ing.” They differ as to the manner in which the succession is con- 
tinued. While one maintains that it was to be handed down through 
the line of Bishops, the other recognizes the Presbytery as the con- 
stituted means of perpetuating the ministerial office. But Congre- 
gationalism acknowledges the divine appointment and authority of 
neither. If we are to believe the Pastor of “ the purest sample of the 
primitive Church now in the world,” that Church is “invested with 
the power,” the unalienable right — the power characteristic of the 
genuine Church of Christ, “of choosing their own ministers.” This 
expression indeed, in itself considered, asserts nothing more than 
the privilege in which the “ Prelatical Churches ” are sometimes in- 
dulged — but illustrated by the history and practice of “the purest 
sample” — it conveys ideas as utterly at variance with the principles 
of Presbyterianism, as it can be with those of Episcopacy. “ They 
[our Fathers] believed that a Church was invested with power to 
choose their own ministers.” That the inspired scriptures authorize 
or sanction the exercise of any such power, we are not assured, and 
have some reason to doubt. “ Our Fathers, however, believed” so, 
and though “ no testimony of the Fathers can give divine authority to 
any institution whatever,” yet the “ belief' of “ our fathers” is per- 
fectly conclusive. The expression illustrated by Congregational 
practice, conveys the unfounded idea, the absurd position, that a 
body of men, possessing no pretensions whatever to any such pow- 
ers, is competent to invest an individual with the powers of the minis- 


Miller’s Letters, Ed. 1807, p. 8. 


56 


terial office. “ The Churches of Connecticut originally maintained, 
that the right of choosing and settling their ministers ” as well as “of ex- 
ercising discipline, and performing alljuridiral acts,w>as2in the Church , 
when properly organized ; and they denied all external or foreign pow- 
er of Presbyteries , synods, general councils or assemblies. Hence , 
they were termed Congregational Churches. It was the general 
opinion, among the ministers, “that Elders ought to lay on hands in or . 
dination, if there were a Presbytery in the Church , but if there were 
not, the Church might appoint some other Elders, or a number of the 
brethren to that service.” “ They held, that ordination did not con- 
stitute the essentials of the ministerial office — but the qualifications 
for office, the election of the Church guided by the rule of Christ, and 
the acceptance of the Pastor elect.” “ They maintained that all the 
Pastor’s office and power, was confined to his own Church and Congre- 
gation, and that the administering Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in 
other Churches was irregular.* * * § ’* 

The same authentic record which furnishes these “testimonies, ’’al- 
so informs us, that among other instances ofthe same kind, the firstor- 
dained pastor of “the first eclesiastical society of Savbrook,” was in- 
vested with ministerial office, not by men qualified according to “ the 
rule of Christ,” and scripture, practice to confer the authority, but, 
“ that hands were imposed , by two or three of the principal brethren , 
whom the Church had appointed to that service.” His successor too 
the “ moderator of that memorable synod,” which formed the “ migh- 
ty bond” — the “ monumental pillar,” was ordained in like manner. 
“ A council ofministers and churches, assisted at his ordination’*, we 
are told, “ but the imposition of hands was performed by the breth- 
ren. The council considered it as an irregular proceeding, but the 
brethren were so tenacious, of what they esteemed their right, that 
they could not be prevented, without much inconvenience.”! And 
is it necessary to enter upon an argument to show, that they who 
come as “ Ambassadors for Christ, ”J as ministers of reconciliation, || 
“ and stewards of the mysteries of God,”§ must derive their authori- 
ty, from him in whose name they act, or be guilty of high presump. 

* Trumbull’s Hist. Con. vol. I. p. 299. Repeated instances of thisTrind of ordi- 
nation occur : among them, the famous leather mitten ordination at Stratford, when 
Elder Brinsmaid immortalised himself, by laying on his hands, with a leather mit- 

ten to invest Mr. Chauncy with the authority of a Christian minister. 

f 2 Cor. v. 20. J 2 Cor. v. 18. || i Cor. iv 1. 

§ Trumbull’s History of Conn. Vol I. pp. 29S, 297. 


51 


tion ? Is it needful to urge, that “ no man taketh this honor unto 
himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron,”* when even the 
blessed “ Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest?” He 
the great head of the chureh, has “ all power — in Heaven and in 
earth, ”t and whosoever presumes to act in his name must unquest- 
ionably possess authority so to do, or stand in danger of “ perish- 
ing in the gainsaying of Core.”J And this authority can be con- 
ferred, and received only by direct commission, or though a divinely 
appointed medium. All the Christians in the world, combined, says 
one, can never make a sacrament — nor can they make the word of 
God, nor can they make or authorize a commissioned minister of Je- 
sus Christ. To have a valid commission, it must come from him. 
Assuredly, unless he immediately bestows it, none but those whom he 
has authorised, can convey it. He did appoint the mode of its con- 
veyance, in his commission to the Apostles. What that mode was, 
scripture and apostolic practice will determine, and it must be at their 
peril that any choose to deviate therefrom. It is no matter of expe- 
diency. Either all possess the right of ministering in the name of 
Christ, and then they who presume to dispense the right, are usur- 
pers. Or all have not the right, and then they, who presume to ex- 
ercise, without obtaining it in God’s appointed way, are more crimi- 
nal still. It is an undeniable fact, that a single instance of lay-ordi- 
nation, such as was practised, in “ the purest sample of the primitive 
Church,” is not to be found in scripture — “ Neither,” observes Am- 
brose Bishop of Milan, “ is it lawful, or permissible, that an inferior 
should ordain a superior, since no one can bestow that which he has 
not first received.” The full force of this just remark, the author ofthe 
*• Retrospect,” admits, in the very face of the Puritan faith, for which 
he speaks, when inferring from Timothy’s ordination, by a supposed 
Presbytery, his equality with the Elders. Apply the same reasoning 
to Congregational pastors, ordained by Laymen, and it proves them 
mere Laymen still. || 

*Heb. v. 4, 5 f Mat. xxviii. 18 J Jude ii. Num. xvi. 

H The Presbyterian confession of faith maintains, that “ none but mimisters 
ofthe word, lawfully ordained, have authority to dispense the sacraments.” Chap, 
xxvii. § 4., at the same time, holding the necessity of an external commission, to 
render a minister lawfully ordained. Nor have the pure specimens of primitive 
and Apostolic practice, with which the Congregational Churches abound, escaped tho 
condemnation of their own supporters. That “ persons without being ordained 
ministers of the Gospel— should take upon them, to administer the sacrament of 
baptism,” is declared by an act of the General Assembly, in 1723, to be a “ great 


58 


He moreover, who presumes lo act in the name of Christ, must not 
only possess, but give unequivocal proof, that he possesses the au- 
thority : otherwise they who bid him“ God speed,” may be partici- 
palors in his crime. He may satisfy those to whom he comes, of 
his, right, by working miracles, as did the first Apostles, or by deriv- 
ing his authority according to the divine appointment, from him who 
beyond doubt, has the power, and who alone has the power, to be- 
stow it. The Apostles, we have seen, after receiving their great 
commission, did ordain others, and not only so, they empowered cer- 
tain men, as Timothy and Titus, to commit the same great trust to 
those who should succeed them. Was this according to divine ap- 
pointment, or was it not ? If not, then is the exercise of the ordain- 
ing power an unwarrantable assumption on the part of such as at- 
tempt it : and those, who come in the name of Christ, must, by super- 
natural tokens, give evidence of their divine calling. Or if the Apos- 
tolic institution was of God’s appointment, then in the absence of such 
miraculous evidences must all, who come in his name, come also 
in the way which he has ordained. 

Compare the distinctive features of that “ Church,” which is de- 
clared, or rather believed to be “ the purest sample of the primitive 
Church,” with the scriptural marks of the Church of Christ, and 
how lamentably defective does it appear in every essential point. 
The comparison however, is reserved unto the conclusion of these 
remarks. 

abuse and profanation off* t holy ordinance.” In the same act, a person who is not a 
“ lawfully allowed minister of the Gospel, administering or making a show of ad- 
ministering, the holy sacraments,” is declared to profane them, and upon convic- 
tion became subject to fine and whipping,” “ and it cannot be denied,” adds 
Trumbull, «« that for persons unordained and entirely unauthorised to administer the 
sacraments, must be a high profanation ot the holy ordinances and a very great 
misdemeanor. ’History of Connecticut, vol. ii. 37, 38. 


We come now to the crowning evidence of the whole matter. 
The “ testimony of the Fathers,” is not worth referring to Scripture 
authority is comparatively insignificant, — the infallible rule, what 
“ our Fathers believed, supposed, and acknowledged,” becomes of 
inferior moment, even the overwhelming, “J believe,” loses its conse- 
quence. Managed by an adept in the art logical, the weightiest 
argument, is reserved to the last place, which shall supply all the 
defects of the preceding evidences, and astound the still incredulous. 
The summit of the mighty climax is this : it is useless to attend to 
such delusive testimonies, as those of martyrs and saints of old ; we 
need not seek to regulate our practice, by the precepts and exam- 
ples of Scripture and Apostles. The Church which “ our Fathers 
have here formed,” though of less than two centuries standing, “ has 
been from Century to Century, growing in numbers, and light, and 
strength ; and who can doubt.” “ The experiment has [not yet] 
been tested two Centuries,” still this marvellous Church “ has been 
growing in numbers, and light, and strength, far beyond that time — 
and who can doubt. But seriously, from scripture and the “ testimo- 
ny of the Eathers,” and the belief of “ our Fathers,” an appeal is 
made to the alleged circumstance, that the Church formed by the 
Puritan fathers, has been growing in light, and strength, and num- 
bers, and this is relied upon with a confidence, no where allowed to 
any other testimony. Even the examples of Christ, and the Apos- 
tolic Churches, are introduced with a remarkable appearance of 
suspicion, "as to their application. “ Our Fathers believed,” and “sup- 
posed,” they sanctioned Congregationalism, but no testimony of the or 
our Fathers can give divine authority, to any institution whatever. 
Growth in light and strength, and numbers must dispel all doubt. If 
the position here laid down be correct, the just inference must be 
that a Church, which has diminished in light, and strength, and num. 
bers, is not “the Church which Christ established.” “And if we 


60 


cast our eyes abroad over the land, do we find none, in their gov- 
ernment, discipline and ministry, precisely corresponding with “ the 
purest sample of the primitive Church, now in the World, yet la- 
mentably deteriorated in the three essential points, of light, strength , 
and numbers ? Does this circumstance prove that they are no long- 
er true Churches of Christ 1 Then there is great reason to fear, 
lest the first Ecclesiastical Society of Saybrook, may have forfeited 
its claim to such a character. For that there has been a “ diminui- 
tion of strength and numbers,” the “ half century sermon,” itself re*, 
cords. But the word of God, and the history of his Church, author- 
ise no such conclusion. At one period, the whole Israelitish Church 
was reduced to <£ seven thousand”* souls, while at another, “ all the 
world wondered after the beast, ”f and “ worshipped” him ; and 
when He, who spake, as never man spake, ”J who was anointed 
with the fullness of the spirit, gathered but a “ little flock, ”|| in the 
whole course of his ministry, while the Galilean Judas, § and false 
Christs, and false prophets, in a short time could number their mul- 
titudes, it is astonishing that any such criterion should be adopted. 
Nor is it a very easy matter to determine in all cases, the measure of 
light which a Church possesses, or what the term may signify. 
“ The blind who lead the blind, ”1F may think with them, that they are 
enjoying a wonderful share of illumination, and cry “ we see,”** 
and yet remain enveloped in the gross darkness of spiritual night. So 
too, growth in strength and numbers is a very equivocal test of “ di- 
vine favor.” The very corruptions of a Church may tend to such 
results. It may be “ adulterated,” by other than “ anti -republican 
sentiments.” “ The laws which came from heaven,” may be “so- 
phisticated by” other than “the illusions of imperial or pontifical im- 
positions.” Even the laws and institutions of heaven may be per- 
verted to subserve the selfish interests of designing men. Repeated- 
ly have they been so, and what has been, may be again. There is 
nothing so sacred, nothing so holy, but demagogues and hypocrites 
have been found, ready to degrade it to an instrument of their un- 
hallowed purposes. Religion and the Church have been, and may 
be again corrupted, to flatter the pride and self-sufficiency, so natu- 
ral to the human heart. The distinctive principles of the Gospel, so 

* 1 Kings, xix. 18. f Rev. xiii. 3,4 $ John rii. 46. 

I! Luke xii. 32. § Acts, v. 37. 

IT Luke, yi. 39. ** John, ix. 41. 


61 


obnoxious to “ the carnal mind,”* to its lofty conceits, and stubborn 
prejudices, may be so qualified, or kept out of view, as to present no 
obstacle to their sway. The truth as it is in Jesus, may not be faith- 
fully inculcated. Undue measures may be employed to swell a 
number, without reference to the capacities and qualifications of 
those who compose it. Children incapable of counting the cost, 
may be hurried into a step of which, upon reflection, they find cause 
to repent. Persons unrenewed and unregenerate, may in a mo- 
ment of excitement, yield to solicitations, to adopt a course which in 
after hours, they lament and condemn. Individuals of unholy tem- 
pers and unsanctified hearts, destitute of charity and every Christian 
grace — the profane, the dissolute — the abandoned, may augment the 
numbers. The prophets may prophecy falsely,! and cry peace, 
peace, where there is no peace, J and the people may love to have it 
so, and, awful reflection, Pastor and people may be treading with 
the multitude , the broad road that leads to death. 11 All or any of these 
causes, may tend to a Church’s growth in strength and numbers, 
and these, until it be shown that such may not be the case, can of 
themselves furnish no evidence of the Divine favor and blessing. 
Indeed, were it universally and unquestionably true, that growth in 
strength and numbers, is an evidence of divine favor and approba- 
tion, there would be some reason to hope, that many of the “ prelat- 
ical Churches,” are likewise owned of heaven, for they “ have also 
grown in numbers and strength” — and the hope is humbly cherished 
that they have grown “ in light” also. 

But then “ have they received all these without the aid of civil 
establishments? And have they required experimental religion 
and a change of heart, to be the terms of communion.” “ Growth 
in light, and strength, and numbers,” it would seem, is not then the 
evidence of divine approbation. Something else is to be taken into 
the account. No matter how much the prelatical Churches have 
grown in light, if it has not been without the aid of civil establish- 
ments, and upon certain conditions: it is all nought. Now it is af- 
firmed, and the enemies of the Episcopal Church are challenged to 
disprove the assertion, that the Congregational Church as such, 
does not require a change of heart as a term of communion ; and 
that if the phrase be understood, the Episcopal Church does require 

* Rom. viii. 7. f Jer. v. 81. X Jer.vi. 14. 

H Matthew, vii. IS. 


62 


both that and experimental religion as terms of communion. Congre- 
gational Churches have avowedly, the Episcopal Church never, refu- 
sed to require “change of heart,” as a term of communion. As 
this is the subject of a favorite slander with those who endeavor to 
injure the Episcopal Church, in various quarters, it deserves perhaps 
a little more attention than its repetition in the “ Retrospect,” enti- 
tles it to. They who make the charge, are challenged to substan- 
tiate or retract it, or be content to stand before the Christian public in 
a character not here to be named. But perhaps the oft repeated as- 
sertion, after all, may not be so derogatory as is apprehended. 
What is meant by “ change of heart?” If we may judge “ by the 
fruits” * of those who are loudest in charging the want of it upon 
Episcopalians, with them, and illustrated by their practice, it would 
seem, alas, too often, to consist in an utter renunciation of every 
thing like a spirit of charity, of humility, and of conformity to the 
mind which was in Christ Jesus :j in the cultivation of a bitter and 
malignant spirit, a self-righteous frame of mind, a perverseness of 
will, a degree of spiritual pride, decidedly inconsistent with the 
principles of the Gospel and its influence upon the heart. In such a 
sense, the Episcopal Church does not “ require a change of heart,” 
as a condition of admission to her communion. On the contrary, she 
solemnly warns such, of their “ grievous crime,” to repent, or not 
presume to profane the emblems of the Redeemer’s dying love, by 
their unhallowed touch. 

What the Episcopal Church does require, as terms of communion, 
may be learnt from the express declarations of her standards, and 
here alone are they to be sought. The very office by which her 
members are admitted into the communion of the Church, opens 
with the express declaration, that “ all men are conceived and born in 
sin, (and that which is born of flesh is flesh,) and they who are in the 
flesh cannot please God but live in sin” — “ Original sin,” she says 
again, “ is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that 
naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is 
very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature 
inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth away, contrary to the spirit ; 
and therefore in every person born into the world, it deserveth God’s 
wrath and damnation.” (Art. ix.) The condition of man is such, that he 
cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good 


Mat. vii. 16. 


f Phil. ii. 5. 


63 


works, (o faith and calling upon God ; wherefore we have no power 
to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace 
of God, by Christ, preventing us [going before,] that we may have a 
good will.” (Art. x.) “Works done before the grace of Christ, and 
the inspiration of his spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as 
they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ — yea rather, for that they are 
not done as God hath willed, and commanded them to be done, we 
doubt not, but they have the nature of sin.” (Art. xiii.) Now hold- 
ing these doctrines, and inculcating them in her various services, is it 
possible for any man to believe, that being such as they are here 
described, men are regarded as fit subjects for the kingdom of God, 
and the communion of his Church, or does she expect and require a 
change before they can be admitted to either. Conceived and 
born in sin, unable to please God ; inheriting a corruption of na- 
ture, whereby they are very far gone from original righteousness 
and inclined to evil — a corruption which deserves God’s wrath and 
damnation — unable to turn themselves to faith, and calling upon God, 
unable to do works acceptable to God — without the will and with- 
out the power to do any thing but what partakes of the nature of sin. 
Is it not the plain, the necessary inference, that she does and must, 
require a change of such ? And is this equivalent to a change of 
heart ? 

Does she not require, that they “ be born again of the spirit” — 
that they be “spiritually regenerated” — that, “ the grace of God go- 
ing before, that they may have a good will, and working with them 
when they have that good will,” they “ renounce the devil and all 
his works, and constantly believe God’s holy word, and obediently 
keep his commandments ?” that they possess that “ repentance 
whereby they forsake sin, and faith,” (Church Catechism,) by 
which “only” she declares, “ we are justified ?” (Art. xii.) Com- 
pared with what the natural condition of man is declared to be, does 
this amount to change of heart, and experimental religion ? 

She instructs us to pray, that God would cleanse the thoughts of our 
hearts by the inspiration of his Holy Spirit,” (Col. in Com. Service.) 
that he would “ create, and make in us new and contrite hearts/’ 
(Collect for Ash- Wednesday,) that “ being regenerate and made his 
children by adoption and grace, we may be daily renewed by his ho- 
ly spirit.” (Col. for Christmas day.) Does this answer to experi- 
mental religion and change of heart ? She prays for those who seek 
to be admitted into her communion, upon the most solemn profes- 


64 

sions, and therefore expects that “the old man maybe so buried, 
that the new man may be raised up in them “that all sinful affec- 
tions, may die in them, and that all things belonging to the spirit 
may live, and grow in them,” “ that they may have power and 
strength to have victory,and to triumph against the devil, the world, 
and the flesh,” and also to be indued with Heavenly virtues. (Bap- 
tismal service.) Does this resemble experimental religion, and a 
change of heart ? She represents that those who are “ delivered from 
curse and damnation,” are called by God’s spirit, “through grace 
they obey the call,” “ they are freely justified,” “ they are 
made sons of God by adoption” — “ they are made like the image of 
his oidy-begotten Son Jesus Christ,” “they feel in themselves the 
working of the spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and 
their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heav- 
enly things.” (Art. xvii.) Is this experimental religion and change 
of heart ? Now these are passages, selected as recollection sugges- 
ted them, or as they casually met the eye, taken from that standard 
of doctrine and discipline, to which the ministers of the Church 1 are 
solemnly pledged to adhere. Neither time nor the limits prescribed 
to these remarks, will permit a full examination. Sufficient howev- 
er is here set forth, to show what the Church does “ require as terms 
of communion.” We leave it those who charge Episcopalians with 
their want of them, to decide whether or not these constitute “ ex- 
perimental religion and a change of heart.” As “a change of heart” 
is no where required in so many words, in the Bible, if it is not com- 
prehended in the requisitions of the Church, it is difficult to under- 
stand what it does mean. Repentance and faith are the terms of 
salvation which the word of God requires, and if these do not em- 
brace “ change of heart,” then has no Church a right to make this 
a term of communion. If they do embrace it, then does the Church 
clearly require it. 

But this charge against the “Prelatical Churches,” comes with a 
peculiarly ill grace from the Congregationalist, whose system does not 
require, as an express condition of communion, “ a change of heart,” 
and by which it has been, and continues to be, in many instan- 
ces, avowedly rejected. He tells us “the constitution” of his church 
is the Bible,” “ in every case of discipline he resorts to the Bible.” 
But the Bible uses no such language, in prescribing the terms of 
Church communion or covenant with God. That a “change of 
heart,” is required, in other words, it is true, but the very objection 


65 


urged against the Episcopal Church, that th3 identical phrase is not 
found in her formularies, applies to the Bible itself. But further, if 
the Episcopal Church does not inculcate the necessity of “a change 
of heart,’ 7 then neither did “the first ministers and Churches'’ of 
Connecticut, for they, as one of their own writers informs us, 
“ agreed in doctrine with their brethren of the established Church.” 
“ All the ministers,” says Neal, “ were exactly conformable to the 
Church of England.” — ( Trumbull's History of Connecticut, Vol. I. 
Chap . xiii.) 

And has not the time been, when “there was a strong party in the 
colony of Connecticut, who were for admitting all persons, of a reg- 
ular life, to full communion in the churches, upon their making a 
profession of the Christian religion, without any inquiry with respect 
to a change of heart — and for treating all baptized persons, as mem- 
bers of the Church ?” Among the clergy of the Congregational Church 
have there not been numbers who have been denounced, by their 
own denomination as “Arminians, preachers of a dead, cold morality, 
without any distinction of it from a heathen morality?” Was 
there never a period in the history of the Congregational Church, 
when “the great proportion of the clergy were of opinion, that 
unregenerated men, if externally moral, ought to be admitted to 
all the ordinances ? Was there never a time, nay during the very 
period of “ the celebrated revival of religion,” when, to use the lan- 
guage of the same writer, who has been quoted, when “great awa- 
kenings, convictions, and joys, and much zeal, 5 ' in religious concerns, 
were taken for real conversions to God, when there was no real 
change — when the heart was left under the dominion of pride and 
selfishness, and totally opposed to God and holiness — when the 
clergy admitted many to communion in the Churches, considering 
those things as an evidence of real change in heart and life, which 
were no evidence of it at all ?* Yes, let who will dare deny it. But 
God forbid that these things should be repeated as subjects of re- 
proach to all who bear the name. 

But radically defective as Congregationalism may be in this essen- 
tial feature of a pure Church, it is asserted to possess another, to 
which the “ Prelatical Churches,” that have “grown in numbers, 
light, and strength,” can lay no claim. “ The Congregational 
Churches” “ have received all these, without the aid of civil establish- 
ments.” And again, “we are presenting before the world, evidence 

* Trumbull’s Hist Con. Vol. I. p. 311. II .176, 146. 

9 


66 


that the Church of Christ can stand without the wealth, and power, 
and religious establishments of the kingdoms of this world ; that the 
Church of Christ can be sustained by its own inherent excellence, 
without the interference and aid of civil government.” Now, if all 
this be a test of the integrity of a Church, we may again hope that 
the Prelatical Church has some claim to a divine character. If 
there be a Church in Connecticut* which can assert for itself the dis- 
tinction of its being “sustained by its own inherent excellence,” etc. 
that Church is the Episcopalian. Had “ the purest sample” been 
assailed “ by the vulgar brayings of the satirist,” it is difficult to im- 
agine what severer strain of irony he could have brayed forth, than 
that which is uttered in these words. The “ Congregational Church” 
sustained by its own inherent excellence, “growing in numbers, light, 
and strength without the interference of civil governments and the 
aid of civil establishments.” Prodigious 1 But let us turn from as- 
sertion to facts : for it has been already seen that assertions, howev- 
er boldly advanced, and facts, may materially differ. The subject 
deserves a moment’s consideration, if it be only to show the regard 
to truth, and thorough acquaintance with its brief history, which 
characterizes the “ Retrospect on the ministry and Church of Say- 
brook,” and to guard the unsuspecting reader against its assertions 
in respect to more important matters. From the first establishment 
of the Congregational Church, to a very recent period, it has been 
compelled to feel the pernicious influence of “ wealth, and power, 
and civil establishments,” though not “ of the kingdoms,” yet of the 
governments of this world. Fatal to its Christian character as 
they may be, “ the interference and aid of civil government,” have 
been experienced by the Church of the Puritan Fathers. “ In no 
government,” to adopt the language of one of their own writers, 
“ have the clergy had more influence, or been treated with more 
generosity, by the civil rulers and people in general, than in Con- 
necticut.” “ An early provision was made by law for the support 
of the ministry, and all persons were obliged by law to contribute 
to the support of the Church.” “The Congregational Churches 
were adopted and established by law.” — ( Trumbull's History of Con. 
Vol . I. 302.) Was that an “ interference of government, 1 ’’which im- 
posed upon all persons the necessity of contributing to the support 
of the Congregational Church and ministry, no matter how much dis- 
satisfied with their unscriptural character, unless that which their 
consciences approved was accessible to afford relief ? Yet fifteen 


67 


years since, was such the state of things. Was that an “interfer- 
ence of civil government,” which assumed, under pains and penal- 
ties, to prohibit or regulate the preaching of ordained and licensed 
ministers — which treated as vagrants, the ministers of Jesus Christ 
who should presume to preach his Gospel, otherwise than according 
to law, and who in the service of God refused to recognize the 
authority of such control? Was that an “interference of civil 
government.” which, without exception, compelled all to support a 
Church and ministry to which they were conscientiously opposed, 
which proscribed as a heretic, the peaceful Quaker, and condem- 
ned the conscientious Baptist to a fine and the honors of a whipping 
post, should he presume to administer the sacraments ? These are 
not random inquiries. They are intended to assert, what they spe- 
cify, and are fully sustained by authentic records. Is this interfer- 
ence or not ? Indeed, the whole history “ of the established 
churches, ’’down to a very recent date, is a history of “the interference 
and aid of the civil government,” “ of Ecclesiastical assemblies 
convened under the authority, and at the order of the civil power, to 
determine matters of faith and order, points of controversy and dis- 
cipline, not omitting “ that memorable Synod,” which as its ow r n 
record will show, was held in compliance with an order of the Gen- 
eral Assembly. Even the Congregational “ confession of faith,” 
the “ heads of agreement” and “ articles of discipline,” involving the 
power of proceeding against heresy, and pronouncing sentence of 
non-communion upon the pastor and people of a church, were sub- 
mitted to the Legislature for their approbation and establishment, by 
which it was ordered “ that all the churches within this Government, 
that are or shall be thus united in doctrine, worship, and discipline, be 
and for the future shall be owned and acknowledged, established by 
law 

All this too was done in direct opposition to some of the Churches 
concerned. And subsequently to this period, let any one read the 
acts of the government inflicting penalties upon the Congregational 
bodies themselves, enforcing conformity to what they deemed direct 
opposition to the Church of Christ — the Saybrook platform, — by 
threats of transportation, by imprisonment, by seizure of their prop- 
erty, and say that the Congregational Churches have stood without 
4* the interference of the civil government.” Yes, Church members 

* Act of General Court, holden at New-Haven, Oct. 1708. 


68 


were arrested according to law, for refusing to hear a preacher whom 
they could not approve. Men of the first characters, and unquestion- 
able piety, were condemned as vagrants, spoiled of their property, im- 
prisoned, transported, treated as the vilest wretches, for exercising 
their conscientious judgment and unalienable rights. 

To describe the loose, disordered, and confused state of things, 
which prevailed while Congregationalism in its purity was practised, 
and its principles were allowed to be tested by their own merits, 
would occupy too much space. It presents a condition of things as 
utterly discordant with the order and peace of the Church of Christ, 
as lamentable a picture of “ opposition, hostility,” disturbance of 
“ religious harmony and united order,” as any “ effort of the adver- 
sary,” which our eyes have witnessed. Council arrayed against 
council — Church against Church — the house divided against itself 
— disputes, dissentions, and endless controversies — all who imagined 
themselves qualified, intruding into the ministerial office at pleasure — 
and the most lamentable state of the churches, with respect to their 
order, government, and discipline, “ until the Church of Christ,” as 
one of their writers remarks, “ was turned into a mere Babel, and 
Congregationalists at large abhorred the independency and liberty 
for which their fathers pleaded — All these furnish evidence of the 
beneficial operation of Congregationalism. They furnished cause 
too, for the observation of one of the chief “ Fathers” of the church* 
which he made about a week before his death, “ we must agree up- 
on constant meetings of ministers, and settle the consociation of 
Churches, or else we are undone.” The advocates of Congrega- 
lionalism, which it is said Christ himself instituted, upon which the 
purest sample of the primitive Church is established, were compell- 
ed to adopt some of the odious features of detestable Episcopacy. 
“ The church of Christ could [not] be sustained by his own inherent 
excellence.” The interference and aid of the civil government 
came to its rescue, and stripping it of its glaring defects to save it 
from complete destruction, led to the adoption of a “ more general 
and energetic government of “ an ecclesiastical constitution” of a 
“ mode of sending forth preachers of the Gospel which might obvi- 
ate the doubt of their being called to the work.” Suffice it to say, 
by an act of the legislature, in which they expressly state, that “ from 
their own observations, and the complaint of many others, being made 
sensible of the defects of the discipline of the churches of this gov- 
ernment,” they “ ordained and required” those measures which 
eventuated in the formation of that “ mighty bond.” 


69 


<s The Book” — “ The law and the testimony” — it would seem, 
were comparatively feeble, and absolutely inefficient — a more “ migh- 
ty bond” was necessary — that bond, the Saybrook Platform. Un- 
fortunate Congregationalism ! If its friends tell true, twice has it 
been attempted, and twice has it totally failed. Established by our 
Divine Master himself, and strengthened by the labors of his 
Apostles, how suddenly did it expire without a struggle or a groan : 
and odious Episcopacy rose in strength upon its universal ruins. 
Revived by “ our Puritan fathers,” and cherished “ by their labors 
and sufferings,” how very soon was it, with “ the blessings” they be- 
queathed with it to their decendants, “ impaired and adulterated by 
anti-republican sentiments, in Church and State.” How soon did it 
become “ sophisticated by forms of man’s devising,” and the illusions 
of magisterial and Presbyterian “impositions.” How soon, to pre- 
serve itself from impending destruction, was it compelled to seek re- 
fuge in the arms of civil government, and sustain its tottering form 
by clinging to “ the monumental pillar.” 

And did the Saybrook platform prove the mighty bond of union 
and order ? Were not the churches kept in a constant ferment by a 
refusal to become subject to it 7 Did not direct defiance, and avowed 
renunciation of it result in the formation of “ the fourth Society of 
Guilford ?” Has not the Cambridge platform been frequently main- 
tained against the Saybrook platform, the respective adherents of each 
contending with the utmost bitterness, denouncing and denounced, 
persecuting and persecuted ? were there not numbers of Societies, 
year after year, torn by dissentions, and divided into separate com- 
munions ? were there no disorders among the ordained and licensed 
ministers, threatening divisions, and contentions, and the destruction 
of the ecclesiastical constitution — the Saybrook platform ? Yes, all 
this, and more, have been the happy fruits of that bond of “ harmoni- 
ous intercourse and fellowship,” clearly showing that the “ adversa- 
ry” needs not the aid of Wesleyan sentiments, or of Episcopacy, 
“ to raise a storm,” — that “ intolerance” is not peculiar to “prelati- 
cal power.” Such continued to be the condition of things, until the 
predecessor of him, who is now the pastor of the First Congrega- 
tional Society in this place, was compelled, in consequence of procee- 
dings instituted under the avowed authority of the Saybrook Platform 
itself, to declare that “ the rights and liberties of all the consociated 
Churches were at stake.” 


CONCLUSION. 


Within the necessarily brief limits of this reply, the writer has 
found it impossible to introduce all the testimony which has a bearing 
upon the subject, or all that he desired. For the same cause, he has 
been compelled chiefly to confine himself to a simple statement of 
facts, leaving it to the candid and conscientious reader to estimate 
their force, and deduce his own inferences. Sufficient, he trusts, 
has been advanced to place the matter in its true light, and enable 
the inquirer after truth — him who is content to be guided by the Law 
and the Testimony, to judge of the merits of the question at issue. 
Although the prescribed bounds have already been much exceeded, 
it may not, however, be amiss, to what has been opposed to the at- 
tempts at argument, contained in the “ half-century Sermon,” to add 
a few remarks, in reply to its unsustained assertions. If we are 
really willing, to take for our “ direction, the example of Christ and 
the Apostolic Churches” — if indeed, we entertain any thing more 
than a professed deference to “the institutions of heaven” — if we 
are truly satisfied to rest upon an appeal, and to yield implicit sub- 
mission, to “ what saith the Book,” we shall be little disposed to 
look upon any self-constituted society, however ancient , as “ the 
purest sample,” or any sample whatever, “ of the primitive Church ;” 
we shall find, that our Lord himself, has established upon earth, one 
Catholic or universal Church, destined to continue to the end of 
time.* — We shall find, that instead of a covenant of their own de- 
vising, the divine institution of baptism by authorized persons, is the 
appointed means of constituting men members of this Church. t We 
shall find, that in that Church, “God, by his Holy Spirit, has ap- 
pointed divers orders of ministers ;” “ and hath set some in the 
Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers,” “ for 
the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edi- 
fying of the body of Christ — till we all come, in the unity of the 

• Mat. xvi. 18. xxvii. 20. 

t Mat. xxviii. 19. Mark xvi. 16. Acts ii. 41, 47. 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13. 


71 


Faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, 
unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”* — designed 
by divine wisdom, to be perpetuated therefor, until the full purpose 
of the Gospel shall have been accomplished, “ unto the end of the 
world. ”t They were given too, with the express intention of pre- 
serving the unity of the Church, and the stability of its members, to 
secure them from “ the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness 
whereby they lie in wait to deceive. ”J To the superior order in the 
ministry, as divinely constituted, belong, as has been fully shown, the 
supreme power in government, and exclusive authority to ordain. 
We shall find, that to this Church belong peculiar promises, and 
privileges, and blessings, even the covenanted mercies of Jehovah. 
Is Jesus Christ a Savior? “He is the Savior of the body — the 
Church.”H Hath he “ given himself an offering and a sacrifice to 
God ?”§ It is “ the church of God which he hath purchased with 
his own blood. ”1T “ Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for 

it ; that he might sanctify and cleanse it, w'ith the washing of water 
by the word, that he might present it to himself, a glorious Church, 
not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but that it should be 
holy and without blemish.”** Do we need the strengthening and 
sustaining influences of divine grace ? “ The Lord — nourisheth 

and cherisheth — the Church. ”ft Is Christ, “ the head over all 
things V 1 He is such “ to the Church.”|| It is “ the Church which 
is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.” “ Christ is the 
Head of the body, the Church.” From him “ the whole body, fitly 
joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,” 
under that organization of the Church and Ministry, of which the 
context speaks, “ by joints and bands having nourishment minister- 
ed, and knit together” — “ according to the effectual working, in the 
measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edify- 
ing of itself in love. ”1111 Would we unite in ascriptions of glory to 
the God of all our mercies ? “ Unto him be glory in the Church, by 

Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.”§§ Is 
it not then, a momentous question, where is this Church to be found ? 
Can it be a matter of indifference whether or not we are in commun- 

* 1 Cor. xii. 28. Eph. iv. 12, 13. f Mat. xxviii. 20. f Eph. iv. 14. 

H Eph. v. 23. § Eph. v. 2. IT Acts xx. 28. Eph. v. 25—27. 

** Eph. v. 29. ft Eph. i. 22. 

XX Eph. i. 22, 23. Col. i. 24. Eph. v. 23. Col. i. 18. Eph. iv. 16. Col. ii. 19. 
Eph. ii. 21. HH Eph. iii. 21. 


72 


ion with that Church ? or can we believe it possible, that the Fathef 
of mercies, who has designed such an institution for the benefit of 
his creatures, and upon communion with it, suspended such immense 
interests, could have left it totally destitute of every distinctive fea- 
ture which might be manifest to all ? or can it be, that every charac- 
teristic mark of the divine institution, is lost among the conflicting 
pretensions of rival sects?- And if not, what single important fea- 
ture of the primitive and divinely appointed Church, does Congrega- 
tionalism possess ? Can it be pretended, that a society merely hu- 
man in its origin and institutions — a body of men associating them- 
selves together, according to their own views of propriety — originat- 
ing their own ministry, and adopting their own mode of government, 
to the exclusion of those divinely instituted, “ fully constituted a 
church of Christ V’ Can the members of such an assertion, refusing 
to acknowledge the divinely authorised ministry — rejecting, as they 
most decidedly do reject, the institutions and appointments of the 
Redeemer, and preferring to these the devices and experiments of 
men, with any show of reason, claim for themselves, that they fur- 
nish “ the purest sample of the primitive Church ?” — or that they 
are really a Christian Church at all ? As well might they set aside 
the word of God itself, and for it substitute the “ words which man’s 
wisdom teacheth and contend, because men were edified and 
profited thereby, that these were indeed the very revelation of God. 

We have now seen, upon what grounds, and in the face of what 
testimony, the assailants of the Episcopal Church have presumed to 
condemn and denounce it as a work of the adversary. Upon the 
supposition, that Christ placed all the authority in the Church or 
body of believers, which he did not ; that Paul exercised no authority 
over the church, which he most assuredly did ; that Paul and Timo- 
thy were ordained by a presbytery, which is incapable of proof — upon 
the very questionable evidence of an alleged increase of numbers, 
without reference to the means employed — nay, in decided opposition 
to scripture truth, and the revealed will of God, do a number of 
men assert for themselves, the high distinction of being “ the purest 
sample of the primitive Church now in the world” — and denounce a 
society of professing Christians, who cannot admit their palpable 
misrepresentations of the word of God, as hostile to the work of di- 
vine grace, and opposed to the finger of God. On the one hand, we 
see a society of very recent origin, founded in opposition to existing 
institutions, destitute of every important mark of the visible Church 


73 


t 


of Christ within the short period of its existence, already essem 
tially changed from its primitive constitution — such as it is hitherto 
sustained by the strong hand of intolerance^ and secular power— 
and when that is withdrawn, tottering as our own eyes witness, on 
the brink of dissolution. On the other hand, from the very age of 
the Apostles to the present period, has a church subsisted under such a 
constitution and such a ministry, as the plain letter of scripture sanc- 
tions. We behold a church to which “the testimony of the fathers,” 
and the judgment of the reformers unite in ascribing the character- 
istics of the primitive church in its government and in its ministry — 
a church possessing those features which for fifteen hundred years, 
were unanimously supposed to belong to the church of Christ as origin- 
ally constituted, and which during tha‘ period, d d belong to every Chris- 
tian Church under Heaven — a church, coming down in uninterrupt- 
ed continuance from Apostolic days to our own time; in reference to 
which, one minister of the Presbyterian order says, that “ no Church 
in the world came nearer to the form of the most flourishing primitive 
Church, having observed a middle way betwixt those churches which 
have failed either by excess or defect and “I defy,” says another, 
" any man to show me if he can, any other order more suitable, with 
reason, yea, or better agreeing with Holy Scripture, and of which 
God hath made more use, for the establishment of his truth, and the 
amplification of his kingdom.”! Appealing to the judgment of any 
man possessed of an ordinary share of common sense, and 
candidly weighing the arguments and authorities which are introdu- 
ced in behalf of the one and the other, the question is left to his de- 
cision — which looks most like conformity to the primitive church, 
and which as opposed to it, is to be regarded as the opposition, the 
hostility, the work of the adversary ? It is asked, it is demanded as a 
matter of justice, from such as think for themselves, to say, whether 
with such evidences, our assailants are justified in arrogating to 
themselves the claim to be “ the purest sample of the primitive 
Church” — or in denouncing us, as a community arrayed against 
God, and in league with Satan. It is no trifling matter which is at 
issue. We are what we are represented to be, or we are not. If 
indeed we be co-workers with “ the adversary” of souls, would to 
God, that we might know it, and under the influence of his Spirit, be 
led to renounce the base co-operation. If we be not so, then have 


•Casaubon. 


10 


t Le Moyne. 


74 


the foulest libels upon our community been promulgated, the basest 
calumnies been uttered, not only against us, but against the institu- 
tions of the Redeemer. Very different was the judgment which 
the early reformers, entertained of the claims of Episcopacy. So 
far were the founders of the Presbyterian, and other churches, from 
denouncing, that they fully admitted its divine institution. They 
plead necessity as the cause of their not adopting it, while 
they lamented the acknowledged defect. “They acknowledged,” 
says one of their denomination, “that the Episcopal order had signal 
advantages— that a well ordered Episcopacy had most important 
and considerable uses, which could not be found in the Presbyterian 
discipline — that they followed the latter, not for any averson that they 
had to the former — not because they held Episcopacy to be contra- 
ry to the nature of the gospel, or because they thought it to be less 
convenient for the good of the Church, or less worthy of the condi- 
tion of the true flocks of the Lord, but because necessity obliged 
them to it.”* “They were more ready to deplore than defend 
their own state, and wished rather than hoped, to be made like the 
flourishing Church of England.” “ We deny not,” says Calvin, 
“ that we want a discipline such as the ancient churches had.” “ If 
they would furnish us,” says he, “ such an Hierarchy, in which the 
Bishops should be so eminent, as not to refuse to be subject to 
Christ — then I confess that there is no anathema of which they are 
not worthy, whoever they may be who would not reverence it and 
regard it with the greatest obedience.” 

With no better reasons then, than have been here noticed, do men 
attempt to pursuade themselves that they are guided by the example 
of Christ and his Apostles, and upon such grounds are they content 
to peril their spiritual welfare, and hazard their exclusion from all 
the benefits of God's promises and mercies covenanted to the church 
of his appointment. Or will it after all be said, that the whole is a 
matter of indifference ? It is the very device of “ the adversary” to 
persuade men that they are in the way of safety, when they are not,, 
transforming himself “ into an angel of light,” to delude souls to 
their destruction. And who that wanders from the plain and direct 
path which the word of God points out, can tell to what extent he 
is becoming entangled in the snare of the deceiver ? When Saul 
thought, as he supposed, to improve upon the divine direction, was 


Du Bose. 


75 


he not solemnly admonished of the absolute necessity of yielding un- 
reservedly to the declared will of the most High who requires obe- 
dience rather than sacrifice?* When Korah and his company 
thought to assert the pretended rights and privileges of the people, 
against the supposed encroachments of Moses and Aaron, were 
they not made sensible of their grievous sin, and provocation against 
God, by the most awful visitations of the divine displeasure ?t Men 
may if they please, remain indifferent and “ care for none of these 
things they may contemn and revile those that manifest any re- 
gard for the positive institutions of the Redeemer ; they may de- 
nounce as empty formality, that deference to the divine appointments 
which certainly becomes such weak and short-sighted creatures as 
ourselves. But all this is as far from proving the denounced to be 
mere formalists and bigots, as it is from showing the denouncers to 
be the most spiritual-minded and the most charitable. And they 
who do all this, may do it at their peril. They may refuse to look 
upon “ the serpent lifted up in the wilderness ;”f they may refuse to 
wash in the waters of Jordan, and think their own “ Abana and Phar- 
par — better than all the Waters of Israel”|| — but in a concern so aw- 
ful as that of the soul’s salvation, § it becomes them to reflect whether 
any thing, however insignificant it may appear — whether any thing 
which Christ has established, be not materially important ; to “ be 
fully persuaded in their own min,d” that they are secure in rejecting 
the ordinances of God. The language of St. Augustine may appear 
startling to modem ears, and ill accord with the prevailing spirit of in- 
difference and false liberality, yet it lseasierto reject than to refuse it. 
« Whosoever is separated from the church, however worthy of praise 
he may think himself to live in all other respects, yet by reason of 
this one wickedness, that he is disjoined from the unity of Christ, 
shall not have life, but the wrath of God abideth on him,” 

Is it then, needful to offer an apology in behalf of those, who, 
under such considerations, have felt themselves constrained to reject 
that which the word of God rejects, and to conform to what that 
word sanctions ? On the one hand, all is conjecture and uncertainty 
—on the other, all is clear and assured. On the one hand, the most 
that can be said is, these things may possibly be acceptable to God 
on the other, they are in accordance with the divine pleasure ex- 

* 1 Sam. xv. f Numb. xvi. t Johniii. 14. Numb. xxi. || 2. Kings v. 12, 
§ “ Out of the visible Church,’* says the Presbyterian Confession of Faith," there 
it ordinarily no salvation 


pressly revealed. On the one hand, we have an invention oj men— 
on the other, an institution of God. And can there be room for hes- 
itation between the two, which to choose ? Can he, who would do 
the will of his heavenly Father , who would manifest his filial obedi- 
ence, by unreserved compliance with the appointments of divine wis- 
dom, for a moment hesitate ? No ; be “ the Church of the living 
God” — the church of the blessed Redeemer, the rallying centre for 
“ all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.” Planted by his 
own right hand, she has grown and flourished through successive 
ages and generations. She has stood firm as the ocean-rock, while 
“ the noise of the waves, and the madness of the people,” and the 
attempts of her enemies have assailed her in vain. Eleven- 
twelfths of the whole Christian world, are at this day, enrolled in 
the ranks of her supporters ; and though in many places, these may 
form but a “little flock,” yet have they no cause for “ fear.” Let 
their personal piety and holiness but be proportioned to their privi- 
leges and advantages, and theirs is the assurance of their “ Father’s 
good pleasure, that they shall inherit the kingdom.” Firm in the 
divine promise, she shall yet endure, when the schisms and heresies 
which obtain, shall be mingled with those that were. “ The sons of 
them that afflicted her , shall yet come bending unto her ; and all they 
that despised her , shall bow themselves down at the soles of her feet — 
owning her as the city of the Lord , the Zion of the Holy One of Israel .” 

With all due deference to age, which should be respected — with 
all due veneration for the character of one who “comes in the name of 
Christ” — I call upon the author of the “ Retrospect” — “ standing on 
the verge of the grave” — I conjure him, “ standing in the twilight of 
Eternity” — 1 solemnly invoke him ; I call upon those who have lent 
their sanction to the bold denunciation, as the creatures of the Eter- 
nal, as the ransomed by the blood of Jesus, as probationers for that 
eternity, whose condition rests upon his word, to pause and reflect. 
It may be that they have arrayed themselves against the cause of the 
Redeemer. It may be that they are abetting the enemies of the 
cross of Christ. It may be, that they are denouncing the Church 
which Immanuel has redeemed with his blood. In the spirit of 
Christian charity, I entreat them to retract their bitter aspersions — 
to consider well the course upon which they have ventured, “ lest 
haply they be found even fighting against God.” 

Note to the Reader — The writer regrets that in consequence of his dis- 
tance from the press several errors have occurred, which were not discovered un- 
til these sheets were struck off. 


